flow-add-script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: failed scripts are not recorded, and the agent should check `reason` and affected state before retrying. This goes beyond the basic operation and warns about failure semantics.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage condition, invocation guidance, and failure/retry behavior. The most important scoping and safety details are front-loaded without redundancy.

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 covers the essential context: input, placement, relationship to recording state, and failure behavior. It does not detail return values beyond the `reason` hint, but that is a minor gap for this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mainly repeats that `name` and `project_root` must match `flow-start-recording`, which is already stated in their schemas. No meaningful new parameter semantics are added.

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: run a local .mjs file and record it as a `script:` step in an active flow. It distinguishes this from siblings like flow-add-step and flow-add-echo by naming the specific step type and file source.

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?

It explicitly scopes usage to when the user requests a local script in the flow, and it gives the critical consistency requirement of matching `name` and `project_root` from `flow-start-recording`. It does not name an alternative tool, but the exclusion is clear enough.

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