update_script_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the core upsert behavior and the return value, but it does not disclose whether existing files with the same name are overwritten, what permissions are required, whether this affects deployments or versions, or any other side effects. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 concise, front-loaded with the one-line purpose, and well structured with Args and Returns. The only minor weakness is that 'service: Injected Google API service client' appears in the Args list but is not part of the input schema, which could lead an agent to include it in a JSON call.

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 provides enough for a basic understanding, but it is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and a minimal schema. The file object structure is under-specified: 'name, type, and source' are listed, but the allowed values for type and the meaning of source are not explained. It also does not clarify whether this replaces the entire script project or only the given files.

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?

The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains each schema parameter in plain language and identifies service as an injected client. It also specifies that files is a list of objects with name, type, and source, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not define allowed type values or the exact format of source.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it 'Updates or creates files in a script project.' This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly differentiates it from siblings such as create_script_project, get_script_content, and run_script_function. The upsert nature is also explicitly communicated.

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 implies the use case—modifying or adding files to an existing script project—but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_script_content for reading or create_script_project for creating a new project. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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