serp_prepare_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-execution, that existing drafts and geometry are preserved, and the post-call user workflow (edit/preview/Keep/Discard). It omits permission or failure-mode details, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key constraint, with no redundant restatement of the name. The namespace and workflow lines are borderline but earn their place by adding context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers side effects, workflow, and execution semantics. The remaining gap is argument documentation, which is minor given the otherwise complete behavioral picture.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains runtime namespaces (doc, geo, selected) but says nothing about the required 'source' parameter or the 'title' default, leaving the actual arguments undocumented.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Open Python in a new editable Script draft') plus an explicit boundary ('without executing it'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings like serp_command, though it never names a sibling directly.

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 workflow sentence ('user can edit the draft, Run to preview, then Keep or Discard') implies when this tool fits: staging a script for review rather than running it. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance or prerequisites are stated for the sibling set.

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