rba_create_script_capsule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: capsules 'preflight and snapshot source before dispatch' and explicitly cautions that they 'do not claim to OS-sandbox code inside a Roblox executor.' This goes beyond a simple 'create' by explaining side behaviors and a key limitation, though it does not cover all details such as return values or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a named RBA script capsule') and followed by a valuable behavioral clarification. Every sentence earns its place; there is no extraneous content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough operational context: it defines the capsule, mentions preflight and snapshot behavior, and notes the sandbox limitation. It lacks explicit return value info or prerequisites, but given the sibling ecosystem and complete parameter schema, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'permission-gated' hints at the permissions parameter, and 'one workspace Lua file' aligns with the path parameter, but these are largely redundant with existing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the exact resource ('a named RBA script capsule'), clearly distinguishing it as the creation operation from sibling capsule management tools like rba_list_script_capsules or rba_run_script_capsule. It also adds a concise definition of what a capsule is (a 'permission-gated policy envelope'), which strengthens clarity.

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 establishes a clear use case: creating a capsule for a workspace Lua file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like rba_set_script_capsule_permissions for modifications, but the phrase 'permission-gated' implies this is for initial creation rather than subsequent changes. Overall, the context is clear even without direct exclusions.

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