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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds the single most important piece of context for a destructive operation: the blast radius stops at the association and the underlying server survives. It stops short of saying the action is reversible by re-adding, but the scope clarification is real added value.

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 short sentences with the operation front-loaded and the non-obvious constraint second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter association-removal tool with rich annotations, a documented schema and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only gap is what happens on a non-existent or already-removed association, which is minor given idempotentHint=true.

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 both parameters (id, serverId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ordering, or error semantics beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a server from a status page') and immediately scopes it against entity deletion ('The server itself is not deleted'), which separates it from vs_servers_delete. It does not explicitly contrast with the adjacent vs_status_page_servers_add/update tools, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 intent is implied clearly enough that an agent knows when to call it (detaching an existing server from a status page), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools add/update that an agent might confuse it with.

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