nexterm_delete_script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'permanently' reinforces irreversibility but largely restates the destructive hint; there is no mention of auth requirements, cascade effects, or what happens to organization-scoped scripts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only the bare action. Missing guidance on organization scope, permissions, and irreversible consequences leaves an agent without enough context to invoke it safely.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. script_id is self-evident from its name and the required flag, but organization_id has default null with zero explanation of its scoping semantics, leaving a real gap the description should have filled.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (delete a script) and adds the qualifying adverb 'permanently', which distinguishes it from softer operations. The resource noun 'script' clearly separates it from delete_snippet, delete_source and delete_entry siblings, but it doesn't explain scope (e.g., scripts inside vs. outside an organization).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus nexterm_update_script or the list/get siblings, nor any preconditions. The only implicit hint is 'permanently', which suggests this should follow a lookup via nexterm_get_script, but that is left for the agent to infer.

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