script-modify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds items to existing scripts but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as conflict handling (e.g., duplicate names), whether modifications are applied atomically, or the success/failure response. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and key features. Every word adds value, and it is effectively front-loaded. No unnecessary information is present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested array of modifications) and absence of output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or ordering of modifications. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is lacking.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about '@export' and '@onready' annotations, which relate to the 'isExport' and 'isOnready' properties. However, it does not add meaning for 'projectPath', 'scriptPath', or 'reason' beyond schema details. Overall, it provides marginal added value.

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 the tool adds functions, variables, or signals to an existing GDScript, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like script-create (which creates new scripts) by focusing on extending existing scripts. The mention of '@export', '@onready', and type hints adds specificity.

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 says 'Use to extend scripts without manual editing,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like script-create for creating entire scripts. The guidance is implied but not complete.

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