save_script_source

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 states the tool saves to a local file, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, file overwriting behavior, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies the local filesystem.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (3 parameters, write operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits needed for safe and effective invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'JavaScript script' but doesn't explain how to specify the script (via 'script_id' or 'url') or the 'file_path' format. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter roles or constraints.

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 ('Saves') and the resource ('full source code of a JavaScript script to a local file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_script_source' (which likely retrieves but doesn't save) or 'search_in_sources', leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a script ID or URL from other tools), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_script_source', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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