script_attach

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

In the absence of annotations, the description appropriately discloses the key destructive behavior ('Replaces any existing script') and assures undoability. This goes beyond minimal and covers the most impactful side effects, though it omits details like permission requirements or session behavior.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the primary action and immediately states the crucial caveat, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool, the description covers the core purpose, the replacement behavior, and undoability. An output schema exists, so return details are likely covered elsewhere. It might benefit from mentioning node existence validation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions and examples. The description does not add any extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('attach') and identifies the resource ('script' to a 'node'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like script_create or script_patch by focusing on the act of attachment.

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 context is clear: this tool is for attaching a script to a node. The phrase 'Replaces any existing script' hints that it can also be used to swap scripts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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