write_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool writes or overwrites, implying destructiveness, but does not detail what happens on overwrite (e.g., truncation, backups), error conditions, or prerequisites. More context would help, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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?

For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and differentiates from siblings like 'set_script' and 'create_scene'. However, given the lack of annotations, slightly more detail on behavior (e.g., file handling) would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters in depth. The description adds general context but no additional detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's verb ('Write or overwrite') and resource ('script file'), and explicitly says to use it for creating new scripts or updating existing ones. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_script' and 'list_scripts'.

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 says 'Use this to create new scripts or update existing ones,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies other script-related operations.

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