Manage Script Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of whether deletion is recoverable, what permissions are needed, or what side effects attach to each action — meaningful gaps for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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 front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline — there is essentially one clause of content for a five-parameter destructive tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with two required parameters, an untyped 'action' discriminator, and a destructive hint, the definition omits the action vocabulary and per-action parameter requirements that an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 0% across five parameters with no enums, so the description carries the full burden. It names no parameter at all; only weak inference links 'create' to title/parent_id and 'delete' to script_id, and valid values for action remain completely undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb pair and resource ('Create or delete an Apps Script project'), which usefully narrows the vague 'manage' in the name to two operations. It does not explain how the two behaviors relate or how they are selected, and gives no differentiation against close siblings like get_script_project or manage_script_content.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_script_project or the other script-management siblings, and no indication of which parameter set corresponds to create versus delete. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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