Delete a script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the required `scripts:write` scope and the 30 req/min shared budget with a note that mutations are metered far more tightly than reads.

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 purpose and auth scope are front-loaded in two short sentences, which is strong. The rate-limit paragraph is longer and reads as shared group boilerplate, but it is still decision-relevant information, so waste is limited.

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-param destructive mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to invoke it correctly (scope, rate limits, destructive nature). It does not describe the success response or behavior when the named script is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `name` parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about identifying the target script, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Removes a script from the account's library'), which cleanly separates it from create_script, update_script, list_scripts and get_script by the delete verb. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, but the rate-limit note ('Creating, reconfiguring, stopping and deleting all share this budget, so make one considered change rather than a sequence of adjustments') effectively tells the agent to be economical with this call. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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