PyNet Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally discloses that the target must be 'existing.' It lacks critical behavioral details: failure modes when the button doesn't exist, whether updates are atomic, side effects, or authorization requirements.

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 single sentence wastes no words, but given the high complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, 0% schema coverage), it is arguably undersized rather than efficiently concise. No structural issues.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations. Critical context missing includes: the meaning of 'pid,' the relationship between module_id and dest_module_id, and required field semantics.

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 0%, yet the description fails to compensate. It vaguely references 'metadata' without mapping which of the 8 parameters constitute metadata versus identifiers (e.g., pid, module_id, button_id vs name, tooltip), or explaining dest_module_id's purpose.

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 verb (Updates) and resource (ScriptButton metadata), and implicitly distinguishes from creation by specifying 'existing.' However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like deploy_script_button or delete_script_button.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus deploy_script_button, or prerequisites such as the button needing to exist beforehand. No mention of error conditions or required permissions.

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