Delete a script by path in Roblox Studio to remove unwanted code from a place, helping AI agents clean up scenes and manage scripts.
Delete a script by path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies an irreversible mutation, but it does not say whether the file goes to trash, whether it is recoverable via the sibling undo tool, whether it requires the script to be closed, or what happens if the path does not exist.
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?
A single seven-word sentence with the operation front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though there is no structure to speak of because there is so little content.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine reversibility, error behavior on a missing path, or authorization needs before calling it.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is only named 'path' with type string. The description's 'by path' merely echoes the parameter name, adding no format details (absolute vs relative, .lua extension, project-relative roots). The schema is trivially simple, so the gap is small but real.
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 specific verb (delete) and resource (script) plus the lookup key (path), which cleanly separates it from read_script, write_script, create_script and list_scripts. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous from the name/description pair.
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?
No guidance on when to use this instead of write_script (to empty a script) or delete_instance, and no prerequisites or warnings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.