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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses irreversibility ('lässt sich danach nicht mehr zurückspielen'), server-side filename validation, a post-delete re-read verification step, and how unverified vs. success outcomes are reported. It even prescribes relaying the response sentence verbatim instead of saying 'erledigt'.

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 purpose and scope, then constraints, then the verification contract. Five sentences is longer than typical, but the closing instruction about passing on the response sentence is genuinely actionable rather than filler; only slight tightening would be possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the post-delete re-read, the 'unverified instead of success' reporting semantics, and what to communicate to the customer. Nothing needed to invoke this destructive tool correctly 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 all three parameters, including that filename must match get_wordpress_backups output. The description reinforces that constraint but adds no syntax or format detail for domain or site_url, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), plus the intent (Platz im Backup-Kontingent schaffen). An agent can immediately distinguish this from create_wordpress_backup and restore_wordpress_backup 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 precondition for use: the filename must originate from get_wordpress_backups, and an invented name is rejected server-side. It also implies the irreversible consequence that selects restore_wordpress_backup as the alternative path, though it never names that sibling explicitly or states when not to delete.

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