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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful blast-radius context beyond that: only the export archive is destroyed while the backup is retained and re-exportable — the key fact an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the retention caveat. Every sentence carries non-redundant information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what is destroyed versus preserved. It omits any parameter-shape guidance, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% and the nested 'path' object is undocumented as a whole; the description says nothing about backupId/serverId or their sourcing (listBackups/listServers). Only the nested property descriptions partially compensate, so the description fails to fill the stated 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 and resource ('Deletes the downloadable archive') and names its counterpart startBackupExport, which disambiguates it from that tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling deleteBackup, leaving the archive-vs-backup distinction to be inferred from context.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to remove an export when you want to keep the backup ('The backup itself is kept and can be exported again'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement nor a named alternative such as deleteBackup for removing the backup itself.

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