Delete Script Project

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

The description transparently states 'This permanently deletes the script project. The action cannot be undone.' which adds valuable context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true) by emphasizing irreversibility. No contradiction with annotations.

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: two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then the critical consequence. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.

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 destructive operation with annotations and output schema present, the description is fairly complete. However, it could mention prerequisites like ownership permissions or that the project must exist, though the tool's simplicity mitigates this gap.

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 already fully describes both parameters (user_google_email and script_id) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Deletes an Apps Script project' with the name and title reinforcing this. It clearly identifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_script_project or get_script_project.

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 explains the permanent nature but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives like get_script_project for reading or update_script_content for modifying.

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