Delete a JS object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that deletion cascades to 'all its functions', that nothing rewrites dangling bindings (a key behavioral gotcha), and that the tool is gated behind APPSMITH_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true. This goes well beyond what structured fields 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first conveys the destructive action and cascade, the second conveys the reference-checking caveat and the env-var gate. Highly efficient.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, the cascade behavior, the dangling-binding caveat, and the auth/env gate. No output schema exists, which is expected for a delete. Slightly more detail about what happens on success (returned result) would push this to a 5, but current coverage is strong.

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 the note that collectionId corresponds to 'JS object id, from appsmith_list_js_objects', which mirrors what the schema description already says (schema coverage is 100%). The description contributes little extra beyond the schema's documentation — the schema instruction to source the id from list_js_objects is the primary guidance.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Deletes a JS object and all its functions'). Distinguishes from siblings like appsmith_create_js_object and appsmith_update_js_object by the deletion action, and the scoping ('and all its functions') adds precision about scope of deletion.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context — 'Check for references first' — and warns about the destructive nature. The guidance about checking references was likely derived from the description itself. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the reference-check warning provides sufficient usage context. Missing explicit exclusions about when NOT to use.

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