load_script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive, externally-resolving operation. The description's 'Replaces current script' partially aligns with that. However, it omits critical behavioral detail: whether unsaved changes are discarded, whether a confirmation prompt is required by the host, return format, and error conditions. With annotations covering safety, this rate sits below baseline.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and concise, but the Args block duplicates the schema verbatim, wasting space. No extraneous prose, but no structural advantage over the schema either.

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?

For a destructive, openWorld operation with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it states the replace behavior and the confirm flow. It omits what happens to the current script's unsaved state and failure modes, which a caller needs before invoking a destructive load.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the exact schema text ('path: .nk file to open', 'confirm: must be True to proceed...'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Open a Nuke script.' The destructive caveat ('Replaces current script') distinguishes it from save_script, which writes rather than replaces. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the replace semantics make the boundary clear.

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 confirm pattern is described (call with False first to preview), which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like load_profile. The two-step confirm flow is the only contextual guidance.

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