Updating a custom script

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds the permission requirement 'Perm: manage_scripts', which is useful. However, it does not disclose the presence of the confirm and dry_run parameters or their implications for execution, nor any side effects beyond 'updates details'.

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 contains only two sentences, but the first sentence 'Updating a custom script.' is redundant with the title and wastes tokens. It is still relatively concise.

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 destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) and the presence of required confirm and dry_run parameters, the description should explain how these fields affect execution. It does not, leaving the agent without critical context for safe invocation. The output schema exists but its content is not described.

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 only reiterates that updates are done by ID, which matches the script_id description. It adds no new meaning for body, confirm, or dry_run.

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 'Updates details for an existing custom script specified by its ID', providing a specific verb and resource. The title and description differentiate it from siblings like create_script and delete_script, though it could more explicitly distinguish from other update tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as action1_create_script or action1_get_script. It does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where an update is appropriate.

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