delete_script_project

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that dry_run defaults to True (preview without mutation), and specifies the return type (confirmation string). This provides key behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear action line, a limitation note, and an args/returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, limitations, parameters, and return values. For a deletion tool with an output schema, it is nearly complete; minor missing detail is irreversibility, but dry_run minimizes risk.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description defines each parameter: user_google_email (required), script_id (required), and dry_run (defaults to True, preview). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the action ('Delete (trash)') and the specific resource ('standalone Apps Script project by Drive file ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_script_project or delete_deployment.

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 explicitly notes a limitation ('only standalone script files are supported. Container-bound scripts are not addressable'), guiding when not to use. It also explains the dry_run parameter, but does not name specific alternatives.

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