Manage Script Content

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

The annotations already communicate that this is mutating and destructive (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description is consistent with them. It adds no extra behavioral context such as overwriting/deleting files when merge=false, though the schema's merge parameter documents that behavior.

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 that opens with the action verb and has no filler or repetition. Given that parameter details are carried by the schema, this brevity is appropriate.

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?

With full schema coverage, a rich merge parameter description, output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the short description is mostly sufficient for correct selection and invocation. It could be even stronger by explicitly contrasting with related script-management tools, but that is a minor gap.

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 explains all parameters, including the merge overwrite semantics. The description's generic 'source files' wording adds little beyond what the file-object description already provides.

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 names a specific action ('Update') and a concrete resource ('source files of an Apps Script project'), so an agent can tell this is for modifying script content rather than metadata. The resource wording also distinguishes it from script-management siblings such as manage_script_project and get_script_project.

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 clearly states the context for use: call this when source files of an Apps Script project need to be updated. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of explicit routing guidance.

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