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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond that, spelling out irreversibility, absence of trash/undo, the fact that support cannot recover it, the side effect on WordPress sites (posts/pages/orders/users, DB error on the site), server-side name validation against the subscription's databases, and the specific response semantics including the ungeprüft case when the list is unavailable.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and irreversible-loss warning; every subsequent sentence adds operative detail (prerequisites, validation, response behavior). It is long, and the emphasis-heavy capitalization is somewhat noisy, but no sentence is 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?

Given a two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, prerequisites, side effects, name validation, and even the response's success/unverified distinction. An agent has everything needed to call it responsibly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds that the name is validated against this subscription's database list and deleted via its identifier, so a guessed or foreign name never reaches the hosting system, and it reinforces that the name must be freshly fetched from get_databases rather than recalled. That is meaningful semantics beyond the schema strings.

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 (löscht) and resource (MySQL-Datenbank) with scope (samt Inhalt) and explicitly names the sibling that is its inverse (create_database). An agent can distinguish this from create_database, delete_database_user, and delete_dns_record without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions: check size and WordPress usage with get_databases first, tell the customer both, and explicitly ask for an existing backup. It also names the alternatives and their limits (Papierkorb, Rückgängig, Support, create_database only returns an empty DB). That is a full when-to-use protocol, not just an implied one.

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