export_script

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

The description details the sanitization pipeline (syntax checking, AST validation, security analysis), explains what happens on success vs failure, and reveals the read-only nature of shared/subscribed scripts. It also states that 'allow' resolves as 'prompt' in AgentScripts, which is important behavioral nuance. However, it does not describe exactly what 'destructiveHint: true' implies (e.g., what happens to the previous version on update), and it doesn't mention whether the export overwrites or versions existing scripts. Given annotations already signal destructive/idempotent hints, the description adds substantial context beyond them.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs and front-loaded purpose. It is longer than ideal, but every sentence adds necessary guidance—especially the script-type reminders. The formatting is scannable with line breaks. Slightly long, but justified by the complexity of the 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?

The description provides a complete operating picture: purpose, validation pipeline, success/failure behavior, shared-script restrictions, fork workaround, and detailed requirements for both UserScripts and AgentScripts. With no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what to expect (detailed diagnostics on failure, ready-to-execute on success). The contextual signals and sibling list leave few gaps; an agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents filePath and scriptId. The description adds critical behavioral meaning to scriptId (update existing vs create new) and clarifies the filePath is 'local file path'. This meaningfully supplements the schema, especially by explaining the update semantics and the fork workflow.

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 clearly states the verb 'Export' with a specific resource (script from a local file into Customaise), and immediately distinguishes it from import_script (which forks shared scripts). It also explains the create-vs-update behavior via scriptId, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (export a local script, update an existing script via scriptId) and provides an explicit alternative path for shared/subscribed scripts (call import_script with fork:true). It lacks a fully comprehensive when-not-to-use statement for all sibling tools, but the key exclusion—overwriting shared/subscribed scripts—is clearly covered.

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