startup_script_update_startup_script

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates an update action and lists the mutable fields, plus notes the return value. It does not explain permissions, partial-update semantics, concurrency, or what happens when only the identifier is supplied.

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 focused and front-loaded, with a one-line purpose followed by compact relay-like usage. Every section stays on topic and does not repeat schema boilerplate, while the Returns note acknowledges the response without going into unnecessary detail.

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 tool is a simple update operation and the output schema exists, so detailed return value description is not needed. However, for a mutation with no annotations, the definition leaves some gaps around permission requirements, optional field semantics, and what kind of identifier resolution is attempted first. It is sufficient for a straightforward call but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that script_identifier may be a name or ID, and defining name and script as new values. This adds genuine meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not clarify optional-field interaction or whether at least one update field is required.

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 'Update a startup script,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It also adds the smart identifier resolution detail, which helps distinguish this from create/delete/get startup-script siblings, though it does not explicitly compare against them by name.

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 conveys that this is for modifying an existing startup script and mentions that the script identifier can be a name or UUID. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over create, get, or list variants, nor does it describe prerequisite conditions or exclusions.

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