Delete HomeyScript

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not: the blast radius that flows referencing the script will break, and that deletion is permanent. It does not mention permissions or whether the script ID must come via list_scripts first, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the permanence caveat and the collateral-damage warning both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece a caller needs — that this breaks dependent flows. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Script ID to delete'), which carries the semantics already. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or where to obtain it, so 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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a HomeyScript'), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_script, list_scripts, and upsert_script. An agent can identify this as the destructive removal path without opening the 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?

The description warns of consequences but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and names no alternative (e.g., upsert_script to modify rather than remove). Usage is implied by the verb, which is the definition of a minimum-viable 3.

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