pine_delete_script

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false, so the description does not need to restate the danger. It usefully adds that deletion occurs only after preconditions, uses a confined backup, and verifies absence via a successful native library read, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 a single dense sentence, and it front-loads the action and core safety condition. It has no filler, though the clause chaining makes it slightly harder to parse than a structured multi-sentence description would be.

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, multi-parameter operation with no output schema and incomplete schema descriptions, the description covers the safety flow and verification step but leaves important parameter and failure semantics unstated. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to invoke this confidently without reading the schema closely.

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 low (29%), and seven parameters are present with six required. The description mentions version/source/name as preconditions but does not explain script_id, expected_saved_source_sha256, target_id, expected_layout_id, or the mismatch behavior in enough detail to compensate for the schema gap.

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: delete one exact saved Pine script. It adds a clear scope qualifier ('only after version/source/name preconditions and a confined backup') that separates this from broader Pine editing or layout deletion siblings.

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?

It gives a precondition gate for when deletion is allowed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as pine_rename_script or describe when deletion should not be used. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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