Delete Script Project

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating 'This permanently deletes the script project. The action cannot be undone.' This reinforces the irreversibility in a way the annotations do not fully convey. No contradiction exists.

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 two short sentences, with the core action first and the critical permanent-deletion warning second. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant detail.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential irreversible nature of the operation. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention when deletion should be used or what happens to related resources, but these are largely covered by the annotations and clear purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both script_id and user_google_email already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema covers the parameters adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes an Apps Script project.' It further clarifies that the deletion is permanent, which clearly distinguishes this destructive tool from sibling tools like list_script_projects, get_script_project, create_script_project, and update_script_content.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when deletion is appropriate, or what prerequisites apply. It only restates the action itself and its irreversibility. There is no explicit or implicit comparison to sibling tools.

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