Remove every script from a target

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive effect (deleting all blocks) and what is preserved (costumes and sounds), which is useful beyond the tool's name. It does not mention reversibility or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for such a simple destructive action.

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 one concise sentence, front-loads the primary action, and immediately clarifies what is not affected. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the target, the destructive action, and the preserved elements. It could add a note on reversibility or success response, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter, target, as 'Sprite name, or "Stage"' (100% coverage). The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that the action applies to a sprite or the stage, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Deletes all blocks') and an explicit resource ('a sprite or the stage'), and it distinguishes the scope by preserving costumes and sounds. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like remove_sprite, which removes an entire sprite.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to clear all scripts from a target while keeping its costumes and sounds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the preservation clause makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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