startup_script_create_common_startup_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the primary action ('Create') and returns ('Created startup script details'), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond creation, such as whether the script is immediately usable, if it overwrites anything, or what permissions or prerequisites are required.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, then an Args list, then a Returns line. Every statement adds value and there is no filler. It is a textbook docstring shape, though it remains compact enough to be scanned quickly by an agent.

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 two-parameter create tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key invocation details: the purpose, the parameter values, and what is returned. The only real gap is contextual guidance about when this tool fits among the many startup_script siblings and how this differs from a general create_startup_script. That gap is meaningful but does not block correct invocation.

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 fully compensates. It lists all valid script_type values ('docker_install', 'nodejs_install', 'security_updates', 'ssh_setup') and explains the conditional nature of ssh_port, including its default. This goes well beyond the bare schema and makes both parameters actionable with no ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and method: 'Create a common startup script from templates.' The qualifiers 'common' and 'from templates' partially distinguish it from the sibling startup_script_create_startup_script, but the sibling is not named and the description does not explicitly clarify when the 'common' variant is preferred over a regular create.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like startup_script_create_startup_script, startup_script_update_startup_script, or startup_script_list_startup_scripts. The enumerated script_type values imply the templates available, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'rather than...' guidance.

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