shelly_script_delete

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description adds two pieces of genuinely new context: a confirmation gate (confirm:true) and that the action is audit-logged. That is useful disclosure of irreversibility safeguards and accountability beyond the annotation, though permission requirements and side effects on running scripts are unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and target front-loaded and the confirmation requirement immediately after. Every sentence contributes.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the destructive nature plus confirm gate and audit logging are covered. The main omission is any mention of the required device parameter and any prerequisite state (running/stopped) for deletion.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains id as the target and clarifies that confirm must be set to true despite the schema defaulting it to false, but the required 'device' parameter is never mentioned or explained anywhere, leaving a real gap.

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 specific verb (Delete) and resource (a script) plus the keying parameter (id), which clearly separates it from siblings like shelly_script_get_code, shelly_script_put_code, and shelly_script_stop. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those operations, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

It states the confirm:true prerequisite, which is real usage guidance, but never says when to delete versus other lifecycle operations (e.g. stop/eval) or whether the script must be stopped first. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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