Create script

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does add context about stub generation and optional scene attachment, but it omits any mention of overwrite behavior or effects on existing files. This leaves a gap in the tool's safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and optional behavior, and the second offering a clear usage tip. No filler words; every part earns its place.

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 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a high-level overview that captures the tool's primary function and key options. The schema covers parameter details, so the description doesn't need to enumerate all of them; however, it could mention prerequisites like the `project` parameter, but that's in the schema. A 4 is fair.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the `content` parameter's role (real code vs stub) and the combined attach-to-scene behavior, adding value beyond the parameter list. Therefore 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Write a new GDScript file' and clearly names the resource type. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like script_validate by focusing on creation, and notes the optional scene attachment behavior.

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 usage for creating scripts, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Since it's the only script-creation tool among siblings, the context is clear, but there's no direct 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, so I rate it 4 rather than 5.

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