manage_script_include

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'confirm='approve'' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether create/update/delete are destructive), permission requirements, or behavior of 'execute'. The tool's mutating capabilities are implied but not explained.

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 concise sentence, but it omits essential details. While brevity is positive, the lack of structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections) reduces its utility.

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 9 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter roles, return types, or behavior for each action. The tool is complex (CRUD+execute) but the description treats it minimally.

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 only 22%, leaving most parameters undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it doesn't explain 'query', 'active', or 'script_include_id'. It only hints at the 'confirm' parameter value.

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 lists all actions (list, get, create, update, delete, execute) and specifies the target table (sys_script_include), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no instructions on when not to use it. The description only lists actions without context.

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