create_script

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that providing 'content' overrides extends/className, and mentions the overwrite parameter. However, it does not state what happens on success (e.g., file creation, return value) or error conditions like file existence when overwrite is false. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key optional parameters. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

Although the schema covers parameter descriptions well, the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and the description omits vital contextual details such as return values, side effects (file creation), and error handling (e.g., behavior when overwrite is false and file exists). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely lists the optional fields. The schema already explains each parameter adequately, so the description does not significantly 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 verb ('Create') and the resource ('a new GDScript file'), and mentions optional parameters (extends, class_name, body). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like read_script or check_script, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives like attach_script or read_script. It implicitly suggests usage for creating a script, but lacks any when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, leaving room for ambiguity.

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