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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the concrete blast radius ('its volumes are lost'), a refusal condition, and the fact that the call may pause for human approval — context the annotations alone do not convey. It does not address irreversibility or retry semantics beyond the approval hint.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveats following. Every clause carries distinct information (scope, refusal, approval).

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope and the approval interruption well, but leaves request_key (likely idempotency) and the server identifier format unaddressed. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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 33%: the 'approval' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'server' and 'request_key' have no descriptions anywhere. The description text adds nothing about parameter formats, the naming pattern constraint, or what request_key is for, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 ('forget') and resource ('a server'), and immediately clarifies the scope with 'without a reset', which separates it from the destructive-then-reset semantics of siblings like server_remove or server_clean. It does not name a sibling tool directly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 real precondition — refusal while the server 'answers and holds a volume copy' — which tells the agent when this call will not succeed. However, it never says when to prefer this over server_remove, server_clean, or server_drain, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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