acs_create_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. As a mutation tool, it does not disclose whether an existing script is overwritten, what happens on update, whether specific permissions are needed, or what the return value represents. This is a significant gap for an upsert operation.

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 short sentence with no redundancy. It is maximally concise and front-loaded, though more detail could be added, the structure itself is efficient.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical behavioral details like idempotency, overwrite semantics, and expected response, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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% for both parameters (name and content). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as uniqueness constraints or content validation rules. Baseline 3 applies when schema covers everything.

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 '创建或更新一个 TR-069 Lua 脚本' clearly states a create/update action on a specific resource (TR-069 Lua script). It distinguishes from sibling tools like acs_get_script, acs_delete_script, and acs_run_script by indicating write functionality.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acs_list_scripts, acs_get_script, or acs_update_script. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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