write_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. It merely restates the action without explaining overwrite behavior, backup creation (despite the create_backup parameter defaulting to true), or any side effects or requirements. This is insufficient for a mutating 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is efficient but may be too terse, lacking useful context about file overwriting or backup behavior.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention whether the file is created if missing, whether content is overwritten, or that backups are created by default. The schema compensates for parameter definitions but not for usage context.

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 covers all parameters with clear descriptions (path, content, create_backup), so the description need not add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema 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 clearly states the tool writes content to a script file, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from similar sibling tools like create_script or write_resource, both of which may also write script-related content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of whether it creates new files or overwrites existing ones, leaving the agent without criteria for selecting among siblings like create_script or write_resource.

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