script_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the tool overwrites existing files, triggers a filesystem scan, and changes the cleanup.rm listing depending on new vs. overwrite—details that materially affect how an agent invokes it.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences deliver the purpose and key behavioral details without filler. Every clause earns its place: creation, overwrite, filesystem scan, and the cleanup.rm distinction.

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?

The description covers creation, overwrite behavior, filesystem scan, and sidecar details—everything an agent needs to safely execute. With full schema coverage and an output schema present, no critical information is missing for a file-creation tool.

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 applies. The description adds context about overwriting tied to 'path' but doesn't extend beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions; it repeats content semantics already in the schema.

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 opens with 'Create a new GDScript source file (.gd)'—a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It differentiates from siblings like script_patch and script_attach by focusing on new file creation and the .gd file type.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (creating new scripts) and notes overwrite behavior, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like script_patch are implied for editing, but no direct comparison is made.

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