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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly warns that the action is destructive and irreversible, states that authentication is required, and clarifies that this is only a staging step returning an actionId rather than an immediate deletion. This is strong transparency for a destructive tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the destructive warning and then explaining the required workflow. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant background.

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, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential workflow, safety concerns, authentication, required input, and follow-up action. Minor gaps exist, such as not mentioning how to obtain the instanceId or explicitly distinguishing this from other deletion-related tools, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 only 50%, with instanceId lacking a schema description, but the description merely restates 'Required: instanceId (string)' without adding meaningful semantics such as where to find the ID or any format constraints. The sessionKey parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description adds almost no value beyond the structured data.

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 states a specific verb ('Stage deletion/cancellation') and a clear resource ('VPS instance'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like deleteHost, deleteSshKey, and deleteContact. The two-step nature is also implied by 'Stage' and the reference to executeConfirmedAction.

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 gives clear usage context: requires authentication and must be followed by executeConfirmedAction only if the user approves. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use the tool, but the resource-specific wording and workflow make the intended usage clear.

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