script_projects_deployments_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't clarify if the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources, or has side effects like breaking linked scripts. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete'), making it easy to scan and understand immediately.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), whether it affects project versions or runs, or any dependencies. Given the complexity of deployments in a scripting context, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('scriptId' and 'deploymentId') clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find these IDs or format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a deployment of an Apps Script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools (none are listed) or other destructive operations like 'update_script_content' that might also modify deployments.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a deployment ID from 'script_projects_deployments_list'), when not to use it (e.g., for active deployments), or how it differs from related tools like 'script_projects_deployments_update' or 'update_script_content'.

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