Zapisz skrypt wdrozeniowy

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

The description clearly discloses destructive overwrite behavior: 'Nadpisuje caly skrypt' and warns against deleting existing commands. However, annotations.destructiveHint is false, which contradicts the description's claim that the tool can erase existing script content. Per the rubric, this contradiction forces a score of 1.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The first front-loads the core overwrite behavior, and the second gives the essential safety instruction. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 covers the crucial context: the whole script is overwritten and the user should fetch existing content first. Parameter details are already fully in the schema. The only blemish is the conflicting destructiveHint annotation, which prevents the definition from being fully coherent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains site and content. The description reinforces that content is the complete new script body, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema; it is a solid baseline case.

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 a specific action and resource: it overwrites the entire deployment script for a site. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling forge_get_deployment_script by naming that tool in the safety warning.

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 explicitly tells the agent to first fetch the existing script using forge_get_deployment_script, so existing commands are not lost. This gives a concrete precondition and safe usage workflow, which is strong guidance for when and how to call the tool.

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