Update Script Content

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds crucial context by stating that with merge=False, any existing file omitted from `files` is permanently deleted. It also clarifies that default is non-destructive (leaving other files untouched), which is beyond annotation info.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently communicates the key merge/replace distinction 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?

For a mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior (merge vs replace and deletion). It lacks only explicit prerequisites or alternative tool references, but these are not necessary given the context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the merge behavior identical to the description. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update or create files in a script project' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_script_project and delete_script_project by focusing on file-level updates within an existing project. The merge behavior further clarifies scope.

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 explains the default merge behavior and the alternative merge=False replacement, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like creating a new project with create_script_project, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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