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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (world, settings, backups, exports), noting the running server is shut down first, and specifying the return value (deleted: true). The user-confirmation policy (only named servers) adds safety context the annotations cannot express.

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 the destructive scope, then usage constraints, then alternatives — a sensible order with no filler. It runs six sentences, and the web-UI "Danger tab" sentence is the least essential for tool selection, though still informative.

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 one-argument tool with no output schema, it covers destruction scope, safety policy, alternatives, and the return value. The remaining gap is the undocumented nested `path.serverId` structure, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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% on the single nested parameter, whose non-obvious shape is path.serverId. The description never mentions the `path` wrapper or the id source, only implying via "one server per call" that a single server identifier is passed, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on the one parameter that matters.

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 ("Permanently deletes the server") plus the exact scope of destruction: world, settings, backups, exports, and shutdown if running. It is unmistakable against siblings like resetServer or deleteBackup, both of which are named as different operations.

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?

Explicit gating: call only for a server the user named in this request, one server per call, and route ambiguous or multi-server requests to listServers plus a clarifying question. It also names the correct alternatives for adjacent intents (resetServer for a fresh world, startBackupExport + getBackupDownloadUrl to preserve the world), leaving nothing to inference.

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