extension_write_script

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the destination folder, omitting critical details such as the write operation's overwrite behavior (defaulting to true per the schema), potential refusal when overwrite is false, and any side effects on the Scripts menu. This is a sparse disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and destination. There is no unnecessary repetition or padding. It is appropriately terse for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is missing important context about the installation process, such as the default overwrite behavior, the handling of filename extensions, and the category's effect on menu placement. For a tool that writes files, the description should at least hint at these behaviors, but it doesn't. It is a minimal one-liner that leaves the user guessing about side effects and expected outcomes.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond the schema; it neither clarifies the filename extension logic nor the category parameter's impact. However, because the schema fully documents each parameter, the description doesn't need to compensate, and it doesn't add any misleading information.

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 identifies the tool's function: installing a Fusion/Resolve script into a page-specific Scripts subfolder. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle DCTLs or Fuses by using the term 'script' and specifying the install location. The verb 'Install' is specific to this operation.

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 gives no explicit context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like extension_write_dctl or extension_write_fuse. It neither states prerequisites nor mentions when not to use it. The only implicit hint is the term 'script' in the description, which is not enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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