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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it warns the deletion is irreversible, discloses server-side filename validation, and details the post-delete verification behaviour (list is re-read; an unverifiable result is reported as 'ungeprüft' rather than success). This is unusually rich behavioural disclosure for a mutation 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries weight (prerequisite, irreversibility, verification semantics, client-communication instruction). It runs longer than typical, but the extra sentences encode genuinely non-obvious behaviour rather than 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: irreversibility, filename provenance, and how to interpret the (self-described) response including the unverified case. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already documents domain, filename and site_url, and the description's filename guidance largely mirrors the schema text. Baseline 3 applies — the description adds intent but no new syntax or format detail.

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 a precisely scoped resource ('ein einzelnes On-Demand-Backup einer WordPress-Installation'), with the added motive (Platz im Backup-Kontingent). An agent can distinguish it from create_wordpress_backup, restore_wordpress_backup, and get_wordpress_backups 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?

Gives a clear prerequisite — the filename must originate from get_wordpress_backups, and invented names are rejected server-side — plus the intent (free quota). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools (restore vs. delete) or stating when not to delete, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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