Validate Action Script

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds behavior beyond that: it documents the response shape (ok, errors[], stepCounts, humanSummary, referenceTools), states that ok=false surfaces as isError, and points to a contract resource. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides response behavior, contract reference, and usage guidance in just two sentences. Every clause adds value, including the list of direct op alternatives.

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 validation tool with one fully documented parameter, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, response fields, error convention, and a contract resource. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though it relies on the linked contract for deeper semantic detail.

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% and already describes the script parameter in detail, including the oneOf object/string form and the { steps: [] } requirement. The description's mention that script can be a JSON object or string adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 an explicit verb (validate), the resource (Action Script), and the workflow context ('before send_script_to_builder'), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling builder tool and direct action operations. It is more specific than a generic 'validate script' label.

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 gives explicit selection criteria: author scripts only for multi-step/conditional/polling/saved-or-reviewed flows, and for a single action use the named direct op. It also positions the tool as the validation step before sending a script, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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