Remove Script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds failure modes the annotations cannot convey: the 405 for YAML scripts, the risk that dependent automations break, and a client-specific timeout/hang workaround. This is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 headline, example, constraint paragraph and warning are front-loaded and each earns its place. The closing Claude Desktop workaround paragraph is long and reads as client-specific troubleshooting rather than tool-selection guidance, slightly diluting an otherwise tight entry.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers restrictions, risk and example usage, leaving only minor gaps around the wait parameter's practical effect.

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 both script_id (bare key vs entity_id, prefix stripping) and wait are already documented in the schema. The description's example reinforces the id form but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a Home Assistant script') and immediately supplies a concrete example call. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling ha_config_set_script / ha_config_get_script without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly defines the negative condition: only UI-created scripts can be deleted, while YAML-defined scripts return 405 and must be edited in the config file instead. That is a real usability boundary with an alternative path, not just implied context.

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