Update Post-Install Script

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without detailing side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content), required permissions, or response behavior. This is a mutation tool, and such minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb 'Update', making it appropriately sized for a simple update operation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description, the tool lacks context about prerequisites, side effects, or expected responses. The schema defines parameters but doesn't compensate for missing operational details, leaving the overall definition incomplete.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with brief descriptions (script_id, name, content), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no supplementary meaning beyond the schema, 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 'Update an existing post-install script' clearly specifies the action (update) and resource (post-install script). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like vps_scripts_create, and the verb 'update' separates it from get, list, and delete siblings.

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 implies usage for an already-created script (via 'existing'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, get, or delete. No exclusions or alternative comparison is provided, leaving guidance mostly implicit.

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