スクリプトのインストール

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 states the destination folder, the supported file extensions, the need for an AviUtl2 restart after writing, and points to read_docs for Lua specs. However, it does not explicitly disclose behavior when overwrite is false and the file exists, which would be a useful behavioral trait.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the primary action, then provide extension list, restart requirement, and a documentation pointer. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the essential context: target path, supported extensions, restart requirement, and a pointer for Lua specs. While it does not explain overwrite behavior or return values, these are arguably covered by the schema or are not critical for a simple write tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the supported file extensions, which informs valid filename values. It also mentions referencing read_docs for Lua specifications, which is relevant to the content parameter. This goes beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 that the tool writes script files to a specific AviUtl2 script folder, listing the exact path and supported extensions. This distinguishes it from siblings like uninstall_script and package_scripts by its specific verb ('writes') and resource (script folder).

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (installing scripts to the MCP folder, with supported extensions) and notes that a restart is required. It also refers to read_docs for Lua specifications, implicitly guiding the agent on prerequisites. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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