Update post-install script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the target is a specific existing script, but it does not disclose what happens to the script content, whether changes affect running VPS instances, or how destructive the update is beyond the annotation.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The first sentence names the operation and resource, and the second usefully clarifies that it modifies existing scripts. There is slight redundancy between 'post-install script' and 'automation scripts', but it remains efficient.

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 three-parameter update tool with full parameter documentation and annotations indicating destructive and idempotent behavior, the core calling information is present. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the effect of an update or whether existing installations are affected, leaving some contextual gaps.

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% and all three parameters are documented. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Update') and resource ('post-install script') and adds that it applies to existing automation scripts. This distinguishes it from create/get/delete sibling tools, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'modify existing automation scripts' implies the tool is for updating scripts that already exist, which hints at when to use it versus creating a new script. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools such as VPS_createPostInstallScriptV1 or VPS_deletePostInstallScriptV1.

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