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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: edits hit the draft only, nothing reaches visitors until helpcenter_publish_template, and a stale etag is refused with stale_draft. It does not, however, say whether the delete is reversible (no undo path, unlike restore_template_version for templates) or whether removal affects references elsewhere in the template.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the alternative, then scope, prerequisites and return shape — a sensible order. The Args block largely duplicates the schema and could be trimmed, but it is not padded or rambling.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in with a Returns line covering new ids, warnings and the new draft etag, plus the advisory to hand the customer the Template Editor link. Missing only the rollback story for an explicitly destructive operation, which is the one thing an agent might still need to ask about.

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 parameters are already documented; the description adds provenance for `id` (comes from helpcenter_get_template) and restates the stale_draft refusal for `etag`. The agent_key credential handling lives in the schema, so the description correctly does not repeat its warnings.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Delete one script or snippet from the draft") and immediately scopes it to the draft rather than the live site. It names the near-sibling helpcenter_update_template_script with (enabled:false) as the non-destructive alternative, so an agent can separate delete from disable without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use vs when-not: disable instead of deleting if the script should stay but not run, and publish only when the customer asks. It also names the prerequisite read path ("Ids come from helpcenter_get_template") and the v2-only restriction with the exact error a classic help center returns.

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