apps_script_delete_deployment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It does exactly that by specifying that the live URL is broken and that the deletion is permanent. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a concrete understanding of the impact.

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?

A single sentence that is immediately informative and front-loaded with the action and the key consequence. Zero verbosity and every word earns its place.

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 operation with three required parameters including a confirmation flag, the description is too lean. It fails to explain the mandatory confirm=true requirement, which is critical to safe invocation, and provides no guidance on error handling or idempotency (even though annotations give idempotentHint=false). The lack of parameter explanation makes it incomplete for an agent to execute correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It entirely omits the purpose of 'confirm' (which is const true and presumably a safety gate) and does not clarify what scriptId and deploymentId refer to. An agent could not confidently construct a valid call without schema inference.

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 verb ('delete') and a clear resource ('deployment') and adds a concrete consequence ('break its live URL'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the other deployment-related siblings (create, update, list, get).

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 clearly implies this is the tool for permanent deletion, and the sibling list makes the alternative operations obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing scriptId/deploymentId), so it stops short of the top tier.

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