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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial blast radius: backups are cascaded away, while snapshots and forks keep their own state and encryption keys. That is exactly the kind of scope-of-destruction context annotations cannot convey; it only stops short of covering permissions or behavior when the id does not exist.

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 most consequential fact ('Irreversible') front-loaded. Every sentence adds a distinct fact about scope of deletion.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the warning plus cascade/exemption detail is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'id' parameter and what happens when the target does not exist (relevant given idempotentHint=true).

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — yet 'id' is never mentioned. The agent must guess whether it is a machine id, name, or slug and what format is expected.

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?

The description never states the action or the resource — it only declares consequences ('Irreversible. Backups are deleted too.'). An agent must infer from the name 'machine_delete' and the sibling list that this deletes a machine; the text alone does not identify a verb+resource.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as machine_stop (non-destructive halt), template_delete, or snapshot_delete. The agent gets no signal on when deletion is the right choice versus stopping or detaching a machine.

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