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

The annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds a useful nuance: it deletes a file attached to a script, not the script itself. However, it does not disclose effects like irreversibility, failure behavior if the path is missing, or permission requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 that states the core action without fluff. It is appropriately short for a straightforward delete operation and avoids repeating the title verbatim.

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 three-string-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but not complete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter clarification beyond the schema, and any note about consequences or prerequisites. The destructiveHint annotation covers one behavioral aspect, but overall context is thinner than ideal.

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 only 33%; only 'path' has a schema description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining projectId, scriptId, or path in more detail. 'A file attached to a script' vaguely suggests the identifiers' roles, but the description does not clarify what path means or how it relates to the asset, leaving critical parameter semantics under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file attached to a script'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete_script, which deletes the entire script. It also aligns with the script-asset family (get/list/put_script_asset) without ambiguity.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that delete_script should be used for removing the whole script, or that put_script_asset could be used to replace an asset. The intended use is inferable from the name, but not stated.

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