delete_script_button

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

The annotation already provides 'destructiveHint: true', which signals destructiveness. The description adds 'permanently removes', consistent with the annotation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details like required permissions, cascading effects on other data, or error conditions. The annotation carries most of the burden here.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. 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?

Given the tool has three required parameters with no descriptions and a destructive action, the description should provide more context about the removal process, return value, or prerequisites. The output schema is present but its content is unknown; the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage on parameters, and the description only says 'by Id', failing to explain what each parameter represents (e.g., pid likely a project ID, module_id a module, button_id the button identifier). The field names offer some clue but are insufficient for an agent to correctly map parameters without additional context.

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 'permanently removes a ScriptButton from a module by Id'. It uses a specific verb ('removes'), identifies the resource ('ScriptButton'), and specifies the scope ('from a module by Id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'deploy_script_button' (create) and 'update_script_button' (modify).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deploy_script_button' or 'update_script_button'. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it fits into a workflow. The word 'permanently' hints at irreversibility but is not a substitute for explicit guidelines.

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