attach_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention side effects, such as modifying the .tscn file, whether an existing script is replaced, or whether the script must already exist. The description is too minimal to convey these important behavioral traits.

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, extremely concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words. However, it is so sparse that it provides almost no context, but from a structural standpoint, it is appropriately sized for the simple operation.

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?

Despite the simple operation and full schema coverage, the description lacks essential context. It does not differentiate from editor_attach_script, does not explain what 'attach' entails (e.g., modifying scene file), and does not mention any prerequisites. The tool may be usable, but the description alone is incomplete for an agent to select it with confidence.

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 detailed descriptions for all three parameters (node_path, scene_path, script_path) with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters or add usage guidance for them. 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 states a clear action: 'Attach a script to a node.' It identifies the verb and resource, and the parameters make the intent clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'editor_attach_script', which likely performs a similar operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like editor_attach_script or add_script_export. No prerequisites, such as the node existing or the script already being present, are mentioned. The description provides no context for choosing this tool.

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