Scripts Update

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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the PUT verb implies full-replace semantics, and 'Required scope: write_scripts' plus the API version tell the agent what authorization it needs before calling.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, one nested raw-body escape hatch, and no output schema, the description never says what the update actually changes, what happens to fields not supplied under PUT, or what is returned. Annotations cover safety and idempotency but not the effect of the mutation.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description does not clarify the meaningful ambiguity between 'id' (store script ID) and 'script_id' (Partner Portal script ID) or how 'query_params' and 'additional_fields' are merged into the body.

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 (update) and resource (a store's script association/parameters), and the HTTP line 'PUT /scripts/{id}' pins down the target entity. It is distinguishable from scripts_create/scripts_get/scripts_delete by name and verb, though 'association/parameters' remains a somewhat vague object of the update.

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?

No guidance on when to use this rather than the sibling scripts_create or scripts_delete, and no prerequisites other than the required scope. The agent must infer from the name alone that this modifies an existing script rather than creating one.

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