Remove userscripts from Tampermonkey

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: removed scripts land in Tampermonkey's trash and are recoverable from its dashboard, which materially changes how an agent should weigh the destructive hint.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the recoverability caveat. No redundancy with the title.

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?

With only two optional params, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: identification options and deletion semantics. The only gap is undefined behavior when names and uuids are passed together, or when neither is supplied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying that the two parameters are alternative identification strategies and by telling the agent where valid @name values come from. It stops short of explaining precedence when both arrays are supplied.

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 ('userscripts'), plus the two supported identifiers (uuid or @name) and the underlying API name (purgeScripts). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like browser_tampermonkey_list, browser_tampermonkey_install, and browser_tampermonkey_set_enabled.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to browser_tampermonkey_list as the source of the @name values, which is a real usage pointer. It does not, however, state when to prefer disabling (browser_tampermonkey_set_enabled) over deleting, nor whether both identifiers can be mixed in one call.

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