Author Script operator

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

No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it creates the op plus callbacks DAT, returns a structured dict, and warns about cooking behavior. However, it doesn't clarify what destructive actions might occur (e.g., overwriting existing ops), which would be useful given the destructiveHint.

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 lean and well-structured: it opens with the action and resource, lists key outputs, and closes with a behavioral caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow, return values, and a key runtime nuance. It lacks details on edge cases like existing node overwrites or the meaning of 'warnings', but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains (e.g., type inference for custom_params, on_cook_body injection). It mostly restates schema info.

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 clearly states the tool scaffolds a Script CHOP/DAT/SOP/TOP with an onCook stub and custom parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools by detailing the companion callbacks DAT and per-family stub generation.

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 by describing the creation process, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_td_node or add_custom_parameters. The cooking note provides some context, but no clear exclusions or 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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