manage_script_include

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether list/get are safe reads, pagination behavior, return shape, or rate limits. The verb list is the only behavioral hint, and part of it (create/update/delete/execute) is not actually supported by the schema, which is actively misleading.

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?

It is a single terse sentence with no wasted words, which is good, but the terseness is achieved by omitting essential information rather than by distilling it. The capability list is front-loaded but inaccurate.

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 an 8-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. It neither explains the action parameter's real domain nor documents filtering/pagination parameters, and it does not disclose the enum restriction that governs correct invocation.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters and the description adds almost nothing: it never explains action values, query syntax, limit/offset semantics, or count_only. The only structured hint (client_callable, script_include_id) comes from the schema itself, not the description, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 names a specific resource (a script include, with table sys_script_include) and lists candidate verb actions, so the subject is identifiable. But it advertises create/update/delete/execute while the action enum only permits 'list' and 'get', so the stated scope overstates the tool's real capability and an agent could try an unsupported mode. It also gives no differentiation from siblings like manage_scripted_rest or manage_workflow.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to pick this over sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer everything about selection from the name and the table name alone.

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