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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully nuances this by noting that turning protection ON is safe while the tool can also turn it off (which is the destructive direction). It adds the underlying API endpoint but omits auth requirements and side effects of disabling protection on an already-protected server.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then safety context and endpoint. No filler and every sentence carries 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 mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers what is changed, which direction is safe, and the endpoint. It could do more on the consequences of disabling protection, but is largely complete.

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 100% and each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'deletion and rebuild protection' loosely maps to the delete/rebuild booleans but adds no syntax or default-value detail beyond the schema.

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 (turn on/off) and resource (deletion and rebuild protection for a server), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like hetzner_shutdown_server or hetzner_enable_server_backup. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Offers directional context ('Turning protection ON is the safest write in this server') but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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