Roblox Inject Code

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that code is injected at top or bottom, but does not mention side effects (e.g., compilation errors), the waiting behavior via waitForResponseMs, or what happens if the script does not exist. The description is adequate but could be more informative.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core action but omits error behavior, success/failure indicators, and the meaning of a runtime response. The waitForResponseMs parameter suggests a response mechanism, but it is not explained. For a 4-parameter tool, this is minimally adequate 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 100%, with all parameters described. The description adds minimal new information beyond the schema, simply reinforcing the role of parameters. It does not provide additional context like syntax examples or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('inject/append'), the resource ('existing Roblox script'), and the specifics ('top or bottom'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like roblox_set_script_source (which replaces entire scripts) and roblox_edit_script_lines (which edits specific lines).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied by the action, but there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. For example, it does not note that this tool adds code without replacement, unlike roblox_set_script_source.

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