delete_script_lines

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal the destructive nature ('delete') and warns about the correct line-number source, which is helpful. However, it does not mention that the operation modifies the script in place, potential irreversibility (though undo exists as a sibling), or any error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 plus an IMPORTANT note, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is not bloated or repetitive in a way that hurts quality. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (3 parameters, all documented) and has no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The description effectively highlights the critical prerequisite (numberedSource). However, it could be more complete by noting that the script is modified directly and possibly that changes may be permanent, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already explains that startLine and endLine should come from 'numberedSource', and the description repeats this tip without adding new meaning. No additional parameter information is provided beyond the schema, so the score remains at the baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Delete specific lines from a Roblox script.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'lines from a Roblox script' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like edit_script_lines and insert_script_lines. The additional note about using 'numberedSource' further clarifies its unique role in line-based script manipulation.

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 a clear usage guideline: 'Use the "numberedSource" field from get_script_source to identify the correct line numbers.' This tells the user how to obtain accurate input values. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it with alternatives like edit_script_lines, so it falls short of a full 5.

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