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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait—the delete is soft and reversible—which is the most important safety-related information. It does not elaborate on post-delete state or restore mechanics, but the core behavioral warning is present.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place: the action, the resource, and the crucial reversibility caveat are all expressed in one sentence.

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 simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior and the most important nuance. It could still mention restoration path or side effects, but the low complexity and sibling context make that non-critical.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully ('Operator API key' and 'Server ID to delete'), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Soft-delete' and names the target resource ('a server'), clearly distinguishing this from create_server, update_server, get_server, and list_servers. The parenthetical '(can be restored)' adds important scope and signals this is not a permanent delete.

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?

The intended use is clear: soft-delete a server, with reversibility as the contextual hint. There is no competing delete or restore sibling, so the usage context is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly spell out when not to use it or how restoration is achieved.

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