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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description enriches this by specifying the non-refundable nature ('không hoàn tiền phần đã dùng') and irreversibility ('không đảo ngược được'). It also clarifies the confirmation requirement, adding real behavioral context beyond the structured hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded, followed by two crucial warnings in parenthetical and dash clauses. Every element earns its place; no 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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is destroyed, financial impact, irreversibility, and the confirmation flag. It could mention error handling for nonexistent VPS, but that is not required for correct invocation and the core behavioral context is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents vps_id and confirm. The description merely restates the confirm requirement ('Cần confirm=true') without adding new semantic meaning to either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Hủy một VPS', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation as destroying/canceling a VPS. It adds differentiating details (no refund, irreversible) that go beyond the title and set it apart from sibling tools like create_vps or list_vps.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool — when the agent intends to permanently destroy a VPS — and provides the required precondition 'Cần confirm=true'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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