Update AM Script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which inform safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., partial update semantics, error handling, or return value). It does not contradict 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 immediately conveys the core purpose and updatable fields. Every word is essential, with no redundancy or filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (if anything) or possible error scenarios. It is minimally adequate but could be more helpful by stating expected outcomes.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents parameters well. The description adds marginal value by naming the optional fields (name, description, script content), which maps to schema properties, but does not explain format or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., script is JavaScript).

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 ('Update') and the resource ('Scripted Decision Node script'), and specifies which fields can be updated (name, description, script content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createScript, deleteScript, and getAMScript.

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 implies use for updating existing scripts, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., script must exist) or alternatives. Compared to siblings, the purpose is clear but lacks direct guidance on context.

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