remove_automation_script

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, but removing a script is potentially destructive. The description does not clarify reversibility, side effects, or safety. Without annotations describing behavior, the description fails to disclose important traits like whether the script is permanently deleted or can be re-injected.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a parameter hint. No unnecessary words. However, the German text may reduce clarity for non-German-speaking agents. The structure is front-loaded with the action, which is good.

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 tool with no output schema, no return value description, and only two parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after removal (e.g., is the file deleted? Does the editor need to be restarted?). More context, such as confirmation prompts or error states, would improve 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?

Schema descriptions are missing for both parameters. The description adds 'confirm=true', implying that confirm must be set to true for the removal to occur, which compensates slightly. However, it does not explain the project_path parameter or provide format/syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 0% schema coverage but partial compensation via the confirm hint.

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 clearly states that the tool removes a specific server-injected C# automation script from a known location (Assets/Editor/MCP). The resource is unique among siblings, though the description does not explicitly differentiate from other removal tools. The German language may limit universal understanding, but the purpose is specific and clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_project_package, delete_project_asset). There is no mention of prerequisites, expected outcomes, or scenarios where it should not be used. The 'confirm=true' hint gives a usage condition but lacks broader context.

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