create_script

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, but it only states the primary action. It does not disclose whether an existing script is overwritten, whether directories are created, whether the project must be open, or what the command returns. For a file-creating mutation, these are material side effects an agent should know about.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the primary purpose.

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 tool has six parameters but only two required, and the schema describes all of them; the action is conceptually simple. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important invocation details unsaid, such as overwrite behavior and template semantics, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 parameter semantics are already well documented. The description adds only the template context; it does not add meaning to source, extends, methods, or className beyond what the schema provides. 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 names a specific verb and resource: create a GDScript file, and adds the 'from a template' qualifier, so an agent can tell it apart from generic write_file or create_scene. It does not explicitly distinguish it from attach_script, which could also be script-related, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 purpose statement implies the usage context: when a GDScript file needs to be generated from a template. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling, such as attach_script or write_file, should be used instead, so the guidance is only implied.

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