Manage Script Project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying "Permanently delete a project." This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it could further disclose collateral effects such as associated deployments or versions. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear title sentence followed by a scannable bullet list. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is largely complete for a two-action management tool: it covers both operations, their required parameters, and the permanence of deletion. The output schema handles return values, so that omission is acceptable. The only notable gap is the undocumented user_google_email parameter.

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 carries the full burden of parameter meaning. It provides semantics for action ("create"/"delete"), title (required for create), parent_id (optional), and script_id (required for delete). However, it does not explain user_google_email, which is a required parameter, so the coverage is not complete.

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 opens with a clear verb-plus-resource statement: "Create or delete an Apps Script project." It explicitly enumerates the two supported actions, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like manage_script_content or manage_deployment. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 action list gives clear usage context: choose "create" with a title, or "delete" with a script_id. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the create/delete decision is well specified and leaves little room for misuse.

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