write_script

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that GDScript is validated by default and refuses non-compiling code, non-.gd files are written as-is, and validate=false forces writing. These are concrete behavioral traits not inferable from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then relevant caveats and an alternative. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 3-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose, validation semantics, file-type handling, and an alternative tool. The destructiveHint annotation covers overwrite behavior, leaving no major gaps.

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?

The description supplements the schema by explaining the effect of validate (default true, refusal of invalid GDScript) and the distinction between .gd and other file types. Path is documented with an example, and content is self-evident, so coverage is adequate.

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 opens with 'Write a GDScript (or other text, e.g. .cs) file under res://', clearly stating the action, target, and scope. It differentiates from siblings like write_file (generic) and attach_script (node attachment).

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 explicitly names build_csharp as the alternative for compile-checking C#, and explains when to set validate=false. It provides context but doesn't explicitly contrast with write_file or attach_script, though the scope 'under res://' helps.

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