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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuine extra fact — that the stored credential is removed as well — but says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or behavior on a missing id.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the destructive scope and side effect are front-loaded before the credential detail. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that fully cover the destructive/idempotency profile, the description covers the essentials. The only shortfall is the absence of an irreversible-action warning and any hint about the 'id' argument.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required 'id' parameter, so it adds no semantics (e.g., what identifier namespace it belongs to) beyond the bare field name. With one documented-but-unexplained parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Delete an org-scoped MCP upstream server') and adds the scope and a side effect ('its stored credential'), which is more than a tautology. The verb naturally separates it from create_mcp_server, update_mcp_server, get_mcp_server, and list_mcp_servers, though no sibling is named 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update_mcp_server for credential rotation) and no prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility. The only guidance is what is implied by the word 'Delete'.

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