Roblox MCP

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It hints at PRO-feature gating for the replace action, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it fails to disclose destructive impact of delete/set_source, atomicity of edits, return value structures, or side effects (e.g., whether editing source affects running scripts).

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?

Single sentence format is efficient and front-loaded with the operation list, avoiding redundancy with the tool name. However, it is underspecified for a 19-parameter multi-modal tool with destructive capabilities; the brevity sacrifices necessary behavioral and safety context.

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?

With 19 parameters, 10 distinct actions, destructive operations (delete, set_source), and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical context: the tool targets Roblox Lua scripts, line-based editing constraints, dependency retrieval purpose (get_dependencies mentioned in schema but not description), and safety warnings for source code destruction.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—listing action categories but not parameter interplay (e.g., that edit_replace requires line ranges, or that 'replace' may work across multiple scripts per the '[PRO] replace across scripts' phrasing which slightly augments the schema).

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 lists specific operations (read, write, create, delete, edit lines, search, replace) which clarifies scope beyond the generic 'Manage' verb. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings like 'execute_luau' (runtime execution) or 'mutate_instances' (general instance manipulation), leaving ambiguity about when to use source-code management vs. other instance interactions.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites for destructive actions like 'delete'. The [PRO] label hints at feature gating but doesn't clarify access requirements or when to prefer 'replace' over 'edit_replace'.

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