Create scripts

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that batch creation happens inside a single ChangeHistoryService recording, that Studio may refuse to open another recording, what the response indicates, and how Studio's warning output behaves for `LocalScript` in starter containers. These are meaningful behavioral details not available from the annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the batching/undo behavior, then the nuanced script-type guidance, and finally the sibling routing. Every sentence carries meaningful information and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important runtime caveats: undo batching, recording refusal, starter-container behavior, and warnings. It could be slightly more complete by describing the full response shape or error behavior, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters; the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics for `className` and `runContext`, explaining where `LocalScript` actually runs and how starter containers behave. It does not cover `source`, `disabled`, `parent`, or `studioId`, but those are already described in the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Creates Script, LocalScript or ModuleScript instances with their source.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `script_edit` by naming it directly, and the restriction to script classes separates it from the generic `create` sibling.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use `script_edit` to change a script that already exists.' It also provides strong contextual guidance on when to prefer `Script` with `runContext: "Client"` vs `LocalScript`, including the starter-container exception. However, it does not mention the generic `create` sibling or when that should be used instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is not fully complete.

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