create_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the template generation behavior, but it omits critical details such as whether an existing file is overwritten (despite the 'force' parameter), what happens if the path is invalid, and the return value. For a mutating create operation, overwrite semantics are essential and missing.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no superfluous words. The key extra detail about the template is efficiently integrated, making the description concise yet informative.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It addresses only file type and the empty-content behavior, while ignoring parameter meanings and side effects. For a tool this complex, the description is incomplete and would leave an agent uncertain about key aspects such as force and class_name.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the behavior related to 'content' when empty. It does not explain 'path', 'force', 'extends', or 'class_name', leaving most parameters undefined. The mention of template generation hints at some meaning but does not establish clear semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'a .gd or .cs script file', making it distinct from sibling tools like edit_script, read_script, and attach_script. It also adds the precise behavior of generating a GDScript template when content is empty, further clarifying its purpose.

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 intended use is implied: create a new script file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like attach_script or edit_script, nor any exclusions. The clarity of the core action provides some context, but no explicit usage rules.

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