Scripts Create

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: the required OAuth scope write_scripts and the API version. It does not say what happens if the script is already associated, but that gap is partly covered by idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by compact metadata lines for method/path, scope, and API version. Every line carries information, though the HTTP path largely duplicates what the tool name implies.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description never indicates what is returned on success or how duplicate associations are handled. It is adequate for invocation but leaves the agent guessing about the response and conflict behavior.

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 100%, so script_id, query_params, and additional_fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. how query_params interacts with the script, or what additional_fields overrides), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Associate a Partner Portal script with the store', which clearly separates it from tiendanube_scripts_list/get/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast behaviors, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'associate' plus the required write_scripts scope; there is no statement of when to call this versus scripts_update or what preconditions must hold (e.g. the script must already exist in the Partner Portal). No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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