PyNet Bridge

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively communicates the destructive, irreversible nature via 'Permanently removes,' but fails to disclose idempotency behavior, potential side effects on dependent systems, or what the output schema contains.

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 single sentence is appropriately front-loaded with the critical 'Permanently' qualifier warning of irreversible behavior. However, 'by Id' is slightly ambiguous given three ID-type parameters exist, slightly reducing precision.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema documentation, the description is insufficient for safe invocation. It fails to explain the three required parameters or reference the existing output schema, leaving agents to guess the semantics of 'pid' and the expected return structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for three undocumented required parameters. While 'from a module' hints at module_id and 'ScriptButton... by Id' implies button_id, it completely omits explanation of 'pid' (process/project/plugin ID) and fails to clarify the relationship between these three identifiers.

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 specific action ('Permanently removes'), target resource ('ScriptButton'), and scope ('from a module'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like delete_pynet_module (which deletes entire modules) and update_script_button (which modifies rather than removes).

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 (e.g., when to use delete_script_button vs. update_script_button), nor does it mention prerequisites like verifying button existence via get_buttons_data beforehand.

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