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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, enumerates the two blocking states that cause refusal, and explains the requiresConfirmation refusal path with the exact retry semantics (ask the user, then repeat with confirm true). This is exactly the mutation context annotations alone cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the destructive consequence is front-loaded, followed by preconditions and the failure/retry path in the order an agent needs them.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers consequence, blocking preconditions, and the refusal/confirmation loop — everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the confirm parameter's conditional purpose well, but the nested path/backupId/serverId parameters are never mentioned, leaving the identifier source and structure to the schema alone.

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 and resource plus scope ('one backup') and immediately flags irreversibility. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like deleteBackupExport, cancelBackupRestore, and deleteServer.

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 concrete when-not conditions (backup queued for restore or being exported) and prescribes the escalation flow when the call is refused with requiresConfirmation. It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent could use instead (e.g., cancelBackupRestore, deleteBackupExport) to clear a blocking state.

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