attach_script

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

No annotations are present. The description does not disclose whether the operation modifies the scene file, requires saving, or has side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is insufficient.

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 sentence that is brief and to the point. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., listing parameters).

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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or success state. It does not. Additionally, it does not clarify validation requirements (e.g., node must exist in scene), leaving the agent with gaps in understanding.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but does not enhance understanding.

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 action ('attach') and the resources ('existing script', 'node', 'scene'). It is direct and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_script' or 'read_script'.

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 (e.g., 'create_script' for new scripts, 'check_script' for verification). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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