remove_entity_scripts

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

The description merely restates the operation and adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. The annotations mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description does not explain side effects, permanence, or behavior when the script is not attached.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the core action efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter tool with destructive and idempotent annotations, the core action and required parameters are adequately conveyed. However, lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail leaves the description only minimally complete for an agent making a nuanced decision.

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 only 50%, and the description does not clarify that 'script' means a registered script name or that 'entityIds' identifies the target entities. The phrase 'one or more entities' adds little beyond the schema's existing property descriptions.

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 names a concrete action ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a script from one or more entities'), so an agent can understand the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_entity_scripts or move_entity_script, but the verb 'remove' contrasts clearly enough.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as remove_components, add_entity_scripts, or move_entity_script. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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