script_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavior disclosure. It explicitly mentions overwrite behavior, filesystem scan triggering, and the sidecar listing in data.cleanup.rm. This is substantial, though it omits permission/session context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with a clear purpose, and every sentence contributes behavior or side-effect information. 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?

Given the moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers core functionality, overwrite semantics, and side effects. Minor gaps exist around session targeting and alternative tool guidance, but these are not critical.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including descriptions for path, content, and session_id. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a .gd file on disk, explicitly naming the resource type and the action. It also distinguishes from siblings like script_patch by focusing on creation rather than patching.

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 implies use for creating new GDScript source files, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like script_patch or script_manage. There are no clear exclusions or when-not-to-use notes.

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