script_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens if a script with the same name already exists (e.g., overwrite, error), whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. It also does not disclose any side effects (e.g., file system writes, repository updates).

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 short sentence that is clear and economical. It lacks wasted words, though it is so minimal that it could have been expanded slightly to include behavioral or usage cues without hurting conciseness.

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 tool has 6 parameters but no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, or naming conventions. For a creation operation, key details like duplicate handling and permissions are missing. The description only covers the basic purpose, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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 input schema already provides rich descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter detail. However, the description also does not add any extra context or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema states, keeping it at the baseline.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('a new script to the repository'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like script_list, script_run, script_edit, script_rm, and script_get, which cover viewing, executing, modifying, and deleting scripts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for creating new scripts, or when not to use it (e.g., when editing an existing script with script_edit). The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Add'.

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