Create a script

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the 409 duplicate-name conflict, the 403 plan-allowance failure naming the plan and count, the required `scripts:write` scope, and a shared 30 req/min group budget with the warning that writes are metered tighter than reads.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the two failure modes, then scope, then rate limits — a sensible ordering with no filler. The rate-limit paragraph is group-wide boilerplate rather than tool-specific, which keeps it from a 5.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers exactly what's missing from structured fields: auth scope, both error conditions, and a quota that constrains retry/batching behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret failures.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the 'must be unused' constraint on `name`. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Stores a new strategy script') — creation is unambiguous, and the 409-on-duplicate-name detail reinforces that this is a create, not an update. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from its siblings update_script/delete_script, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the note that 'Editing or deleting a script is never counted' points at update_script/delete_script, and the rate-limit advice ('make one considered change rather than a sequence of adjustments') guides batching. But it never says explicitly when to pick this over those siblings.

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