roblox_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains that 'execute' runs code in server context, returns results or errors, and requires 'return' statements to get values back. It also mentions script types and parent locations, though it could add more about permissions or side effects.

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 well-structured with bullet points for actions and clear parameter lists, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the 'Common parent locations' section could be integrated more tightly with the 'create' action for better flow.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a solid job covering key aspects: it explains actions, parameters, and behavioral context like execution environment. However, it lacks details on error handling, response formats, or limitations, leaving some gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying parameter usage per action (e.g., 'source' is required for 'create', 'update', and 'execute') and providing examples like common parent paths, but it doesn't significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 performs CRUD operations on Lua scripts in Roblox Studio, specifying 'create, read, update, and execute' with explicit resource targeting. It distinguishes from siblings like 'roblox_get' or 'roblox_scene' by focusing specifically on script manipulation rather than general object retrieval or scene management.

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 clear context for when to use each action (e.g., 'create' for new scripts, 'read' to view source) and includes practical guidance like common parent locations for script placement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'roblox_manage' or 'roblox_toolbox', missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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