ops_stage_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: content is staged immutably, an exact-SHA256 approval request is generated, scripts are disabled by default on production, and privileged scripts are never auto-approved. It still omits permission/auth requirements and whether staging is idempotent, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the action leads, the policy caveat follows. Zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (this creates an approval request, not an execution) is stated first.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the behavioral posture is well covered. The large gap is the 0% parameter documentation for a 7-parameter tool with 5 required fields, which the description does nothing to close.

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% across 7 parameters (host_id, language, content, args, reason, cwd, requester), and the description explains none of them. 'Immutable script content' and 'exact-SHA256' hint at content handling but give no guidance on format, arg conventions, or the meaning of requester, leaving required fields undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Stage immutable script content and create an exact-SHA256 approval request' clearly states what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings like ops_execute_approved and ops_run_command by framing the action as staging plus approval request, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

'Scripts are disabled by default on production hosts' and 'never auto-approved' imply this is the prerequisite step before approval/execution, so usage is inferable. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over ops_run_command or that ops_execute_approved is the follow-up, leaving the workflow to inference.

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