Delete post-install script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. With annotations present, the bar is lower. The description adds the context that this removes 'unused' scripts, but doesn't add meaningful behavioral detail beyond that (no mention of what happens on failure, whether deletion is permanent, or what response to expect). The description doesn't contradict annotations — 'delete' aligns with destructiveHint. It just doesn't extend much beyond them.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant usage context. Both sentences earn their place — no boilerplate or fluff.

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 low-complexity tool — one required integer parameter with full schema coverage, annotations covering the destructive/idempotent safety profile, and no output schema — the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't point the agent to the sibling getter (VPS_getPostInstallScriptsV1) for finding the ID, but this is a minor omission for a simple delete operation.

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 100% — the single parameter postInstallScriptId is documented as 'Post-install script ID'. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., how to obtain the ID, or that it comes from VPS_getPostInstallScriptsV1), but it doesn't need to given full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb (delete) + resource (post-install script) + scope (from your account). The action is unambiguous and easily distinguished from its VPS_ siblings (VPS_createPostInstallScriptV1, VPS_getPostInstallScriptV1, VPS_updatePostInstallScriptV1, VPS_getPostInstallScriptsV1) by the delete operation. No ambiguity about what the 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 second sentence 'Use this endpoint to remove unused automation scripts' provides context for when this tool is appropriate — cleaning up unused scripts. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the purpose distinction is fairly clear given the sibling names. A stronger definition might mention that modifications should use VPS_updatePostInstallScriptV1, but this is adequate.

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