create_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses effects: creates parent folders, atomically replaces existing files without backup, trims trailing whitespace, writes a final newline, does not validate or upload, and returns specific output fields; it also notes a possible watcher upload.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then systematically covers inputs, effects, returns, and selection context. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste, despite the description being multi-sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, but the description still provides a complete operational picture: side effects, sibling alternatives, validation advice, and watcher caveats. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that file_name is a required relative .lua path with an example (examples/reward.lua) and that code is the complete Lua source, adding meaning beyond the bare string types.

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?

States a specific verb 'Save' and resource 'Lua code to a file relative to the MCP project root's scripts/ folder'. Explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_directory_script, create_project_script, and make_script with their distinct conditions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Choose for a quick file under the MCP root') and clearly routes to alternatives for other directory or project types. Also advises validating with validate_script before uploading and warns about watcher behavior.

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