delete_script_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is critical for a destructive operation. It also documents the confirmation return value. It does not discuss potential failure conditions or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, irreversibility warning, args, and return value. It avoids unnecessary fluff. The only slight redundancy is the Args list overlapping with the schema, but it adds semantic value by explaining each parameter.

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 destructive operation, the description provides the essential context: what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, and what the return value is. It does not explain every possible edge case, such as dependencies or active deployments, but it covers enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely and 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's role: user_google_email as the user's email and script_id as the project to delete. This adds meaning beyond the bare property names in the schema. The mention of an injected service client is also useful context, even though it is not an input schema parameter.

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 specific verb and resource: "Deletes an Apps Script project." It further clarifies the permanent, irreversible nature of the operation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_script_projects, get_script_project, or create_script_project.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: to permanently remove an Apps Script project. It also emphasizes that the action cannot be undone, which implicitly warns the agent to use it carefully. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool provides a delete operation, so this omission is minor.

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