update_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a generic mutation. It doesn't mention that the script_id is required, whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the script doesn't exist, or any validation steps (e.g., Python code validation). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness is about eliminating fluff, which it does effectively. It loses a point for being overly minimal even though it's well-structured.

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 is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters. The description 'Update an existing script' is far too minimal for the agent to fully understand behavior, return values, or edge cases. It should at least mention the updatable fields (name, code, folder_id) and any implications like partial updates or required script_id.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'New Python code').

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 'Update an existing script' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (script), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_script_folder and update_datasource_type. However, it lacks specificity about which attributes are updatable (e.g., code, name, folder_id), though the schema partially covers this.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_script, delete_script, or update_script_folder. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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