scripts_delete

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

The description discloses the permission requirement ('Instance Administrator') and shows the HTTP endpoint, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the deletion is permanent, if it is reversible, or what the response format will be. Without annotations, the description carries the burden and could be more transparent about the operation's consequences and return value.

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 fairly concise, with the key purpose stated upfront and supporting details (permissions, endpoint, example) organized well. The repetition of 'Delete a script' in the title and first line is slightly redundant, but the structure is otherwise clean and not overly verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the response or how to interpret success/failure. It also omits important context such as whether the deletion is permanent, if the script must be paused or unlinked, or any other prerequisites. The example is helpful but the inconsistency with the schema undermines completeness.

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 description adds an example request body showing the filter structure, which helps, but it uses 'filters' (plural) while the schema defines 'filter' (singular), creating a direct contradiction that could mislead an agent. It also does not explain the allowed field values beyond 'name or ID' and the value property, leaving the parameter semantics partially covered by the schema instead.

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 opens with 'Delete a script' and elaborates 'by filtering based on its name or ID,' clearly stating the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scripts_get_scripts and scripts_run_script by explicitly naming the delete operation and the filter mechanism.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the permission requirement. It does not mention related tools such as scripts_get_scripts for finding script IDs or scripts_insert for creating scripts, leaving the usage context implicit.

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