write_script

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint by explaining the validation-before-write behavior, refusal of non-compiling GDscript, and the as-is handling of non-.gd files. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no wasted words. The validation caveat is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is placed in the same breath.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description plus schema sufficiently covers the invocation: path, content, validation behavior, and the build_csharp alternative. It doesn't state overwrite semantics, but the destructiveHint already signals that risk.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers path and validate, but not content. The description adds meaning by clarifying that content is GDscript or arbitrary text, and that validate controls compilation checking. This compensates for the 67% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Write'), a resource ('GDscript or other text file under res://'), and the destination. It distinguishes itself from compile-checking via build_csharp, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against write_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage context: GDscript is validated by default, non-.gd files are written as-is, C# should be handled with build_csharp, and validate=false forces the write. This is actionable guidance, though it doesn't enumerate all sibling alternatives like write_file.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.