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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, and the description merely restates the destructive action without adding behavioral context. It does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects on associated assets, or whether deletion requires special permissions. No extra value beyond the annotation is provided.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action, object, and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple delete operation with two string parameters and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the core necessities. It could be enhanced by noting permanence or lack of idempotency, but the annotation and schema already carry much of that weight, and the tool is simple enough that this is nearly complete.

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. It maps semantics to both parameters: 'a script' corresponds to scriptId and 'from a project' corresponds to projectId, indicating the parent-child relationship. This is useful but minimal; it adds no guidance on where to find these IDs or any value 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 states a clear verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a script'), and the containing scope ('from a project'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_script_asset, delete_dataset, and delete_monitor.

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 makes the basic use case obvious: when you want to delete a script within a project. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as distinguishing between deleting a script and deleting a script asset, or noting any prerequisites like ownership or permissions.

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