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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a drain may be incomplete ('what stayed because its data is there') and the call may pause for human approval, which explains the approval and wait_seconds parameters. It does not say whether the operation is resumable, idempotent, or what state the server is left in on failure.

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 no filler, and the core effect is front-loaded before the caveats. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('place none there'), but nothing is wasted.

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 does briefly disclose the result shape (services that stayed and why), which is helpful. However, for a destructive, possibly-async, possibly-approval-gated tool with three undocumented parameters, it omits resume semantics and the meaning of request_key/wait_seconds.

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 only 25%: only 'approval' is documented in the schema, while 'request_key' and 'wait_seconds' have no description anywhere. The description alludes to the approval flow but adds no meaning for request_key (idempotency?) or wait_seconds (poll timeout?), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: 'Move Services off a server and place none there', which is clearly a drain/cordon operation and distinct from siblings like server_clean, server_forget, and server_remove. It does not name or contrast those siblings explicitly, but the action is unambiguous without opening the 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?

There is no statement of when to drain versus cleaning, forgetting, or removing a server, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the server must be schedulable, empty of volumes, or that drain precedes removal). Usage is only implied by the operation itself.

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