attach_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing script attach), prerequisites (node existence, script resource validity), or whether the scene file is modified. The mutation nature is implicit but no consequences are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding. It omits context about expected inputs, error cases, return values, and interaction with the scene. The two simple parameters might lower complexity slightly, but the missing behavioral and contextual details make this incomplete.

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% for both parameters. The description itself does not elaborate on node_path or script_path beyond their names, leaving users to infer format (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths). The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions, only minimally aiding parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('Attach an existing script resource') and target ('a node in the edited scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_script or edit_script. The verb and resource are unambiguously identified, making the tool's purpose instantly clear.

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 phrase 'in the edited scene' provides some context but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_script, edit_script, or add_resource. The usage is implied from the verb-resource pairing, but there are no exclusions or comparative scenarios mentioned.

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