delete_script

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: deletion is irreversible and ownership restricts deletability. This is valuable behavioral detail not available from the schema or annotations alone.

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?

Three concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and important caveats following immediately. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with rich annotations and clear descriptions of ownership constraints, this is complete. The description covers the action, irreversibility, and the key edge cases an agent needs to avoid calling delete_script incorrectly.

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% and the single parameter `scriptId` is already described as 'The ID of the script to delete'. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (delete), resource (UserScript or AgentScript from Customaise), and permanence. The scope is clear enough to distinguish from related script tools like import_script, export_script, and toggle_script.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: shared/subscribed scripts cannot be deleted via MCP and must be unsubscribed in the extension UI. It also clarifies that owned forks created via import_script(fork:true) are deletable, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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