script_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the tool replaces any existing script on the node and is undoable, which is important for a mutating operation. However, it does not detail error conditions, permission requirements, or interaction with session_id, but the disclosed traits are valuable and accurate.

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 two sentences and immediately states the core action. The second sentence adds a crucial caveat (replacement and undoability) without redundant wording. Every word contributes, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral cautions. It does not discuss return values or error handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden. Missing guidance about alternatives is captured under usage guidelines, so this dimension is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which already explains path, script_path, and session_id. It does not improve understanding of parameter relationships or formatting, but no degradation is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a script to a node in the scene tree.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like script_create (creating a script file) and script_patch (modifying script code) by focusing on the attachment action and its effect on a node.

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 usage for attaching scripts to nodes but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It states the replacement behavior, which serves as a caution, but does not mention other tools like node_set_property that could achieve a similar effect. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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