Send Script to Builder

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

Annotations already give readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it does not auto-run, performs the same validation as validate_script, and is intended for human review. While it could clarify what happens after validation (e.g., what 'sending to builder' changes in the UI), the added behavioral info is significant.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral fact, then covers arguments, then gives decisive usage routing. Every sentence adds value, and the guidance is compact despite covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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?

The description is complete enough for a moderately complex tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and decent annotations. It covers what the tool does, its validation behavior, parameter types, and the exact conditions for use versus direct alternatives. A minor gap is that it assumes the agent understands what 'Dev Studio Builder' is and what 'human review' entails, but for the intended audience this is sufficient.

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%: both `script` and `device` are already documented in the schema with shape and constraints. The description repeats the argument names and basic types, but does not add meaning beyond the schema, except for referencing validate_script's script shape, which the schema itself already mentions. 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 states a clear specific action: sending a validated Action Script into Dev Studio Builder for human review, and explicitly distinguishes it from validate_script and direct operations. The verb 'drop' is informal but unambiguous, and the resource ('Dev Studio Builder') and behavior ('does not auto-run') are concrete.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only for multi-step, conditional, or saved/reviewed flows. It also provides clear when-not-to-use guidance by listing direct operations like keypress, launch_app, rale_command, ecp_query, and screenshot for single deterministic actions. This is exemplary routing.

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