attach_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the core mutation but omits side effects (e.g., scene file modification), prerequisites (script existence), and error behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it maximally concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the basic operation. It omits return values, failure modes, and side effects, leaving the agent underinformed for a mutation tool.

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 only 25% (only projectPath documented). The description adds 'project-relative' which clarifies scriptPath, but scenePath and nodePath remain self-explanatory yet undocumented. This is insufficient compensation for low coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'attach' with a clear resource ('project-relative GDScript') and target ('scene node'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_script or analyze_script.

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 action is clearly implied: use when you need to attach an existing script to a scene node. No siblings perform this exact operation, so explicit alternatives aren't needed, but no exclusion or contextual guidance is provided.

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