update_script_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this overwrites existing content, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns confirmation or error details, or affects running scripts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens during the update (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), what permissions are needed, or what the return value looks like. With rich sibling tools and complex parameters (files array with nested objects), more context is needed for effective use.

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%, with both parameters (scriptId, files) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying content update, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra context like file format expectations or update constraints.

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 action ('Updates') and resource ('content of a specified Google Apps Script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'script_projects_deployments_update' or 'script_projects_versions_create', which also involve updates to script-related entities.

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 versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools involving script updates (e.g., deployments_update, versions_create), there's no indication of whether this is for modifying source code versus other aspects, or any prerequisites like needing the script ID first from get_content tools.

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