app_put_script

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the fallback behavior ('Falls back to file hint if offline') and the requirement that the app must be OPEN. These are valuable behavioral traits not present in the annotations. 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads 'LIVE:' and immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though brevity trades off against completeness.

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?

This tool has a complex nested schema (blocks array with opcode, fields, params, substacks) and no output schema. The description is too terse to guide an agent on how to construct valid input. It does not explain 'file hint', the bridge, or the expected structure of 'blocks'. Given the schema complexity, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation. It does not mention any of the four parameters (x, y, blocks, target) or how to structure the blocks array, which has a recursive schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema shows, which is insufficient given the zero 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 action ('put a script'), the target ('OPEN mBlock app'), and the mechanism ('via the bridge'). It also mentions a fallback, distinguishing it from siblings like app_put_and_run (which would add 'and run') and add_script (which targets a project rather than the live app). The 'LIVE:' prefix clearly sets it apart.

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?

The description implies usage when the mBlock app is open and live, and mentions an offline fallback. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., app_put_and_run for putting and running, or add_script for project scripts) or state when NOT to use this tool. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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