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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: authentication is required, the tool returns an actionId, and the deletion is not final until executeConfirmedAction is called. 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?

Two dense sentences carry all essential information: the operation, its severity, auth requirement, return value, and the follow-up action. The most critical warning is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

The description is complete for a destructive two-phase operation. It covers safety, auth, the actionId return contract, and the handoff to executeConfirmedAction, which is essential because no output schema exists. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%: instanceId and sessionKey both have clear descriptions already. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for relying on the schema without adding new semantic value.

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 names a specific verb and resource—'stage deletion/cancellation of a VPS instance'—and explains that the action is destructive and irreversible. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling executeConfirmedAction by framing deletion as a staged, two-step process.

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 explicitly explains the required workflow: call this tool to stage deletion, present the returned summary to the user, and then invoke executeConfirmedAction for approval. It does not list exhaustive exclusions or alternatives, but the condition-based next step is unmistakable.

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