delete_rewrite_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but never states that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether it requires confirmation or specific permissions, or what happens to revisions of the script. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the destructive nature of the operation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the minimum needed to invoke it, but with no annotations it omits the destructive/permanence semantics and the relationship to rollback_rewrite_script that an agent would need to act safely.

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%, but there is only one parameter and the description adds the 'numeric ID' hint that matches the schema's integer type. It does not clarify where such an ID comes from (e.g. list_rewrite_scripts), so it adds only marginal value.

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') and resource ('rewrite script'), which cleanly separates it from delete_rewrite_rule (different resource) and rollback_rewrite_script (different verb). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource naming is precise enough for correct selection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. Notably, the sibling rollback_rewrite_script exists as a non-destructive alternative, and the description never says when to delete versus roll back, nor whether prerequisites (e.g. script must be inactive) apply.

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