delete_directory_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose deletion plus optional archiving and a directory-wide sync side effect. However, it omits irreversibility warnings, default archive/sync behavior, permission requirements, and what sync=false does.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the second sentence adds behavioral context without filler. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values do not need description. Yet for a destructive, unannotated tool with 0% parameter description coverage, the definition is only partially complete: it covers purpose and sync context but leaves parameter semantics and safety details underexplained.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions archive and sync conceptually but does not explain the 'directory' or 'file_name' parameters, nor clarify the sync boolean's effect.

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?

Specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'Lua script' scoped to an outside folder project's scripts/ or drafts/ folder. It distinguishes this from generic delete_script/delete_project_script by naming the directory-project context, so an agent can identify the right operation.

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?

Implies use for directory-project scripts via the scope, and notes a sync follow-up after deleting from scripts/. But it does not explicitly say when to choose this over delete_script, delete_project_script, or other deletion tools, nor when not to use it.

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