Apps Script MCP

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 and excels at this. It explicitly warns about permanent deletion and irreversibility, which are critical behavioral traits for a destructive operation. This goes well beyond what a basic 'delete' description would provide.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the core purpose in the first sentence, critical warning in the second, and parameter explanation in a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, critical behavioral warnings, and parameter explanation. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. This is comprehensive for its complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining what 'script_id' represents ('The script project ID to delete'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't specify format requirements (like whether it's numeric or alphanumeric), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('Apps Script project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_drive_file_tool or delete_event_tool. It provides a complete verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to delete an Apps Script project) and includes a strong warning about permanent deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like trash_drive_file_tool for reversible deletion), which prevents a perfect score.

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