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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true, which tells the agent a mutation occurs but not what it destroys. The description goes beyond that by stating explicitly that existing backups are DELETED, which is exactly the consequence an agent must weigh before calling. It also pins the underlying API endpoint for traceability.

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, each earning its place: purpose, destructive consequence, and API endpoint. The most decision-relevant fact (backups are deleted) is placed early rather than buried.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the action does, the irreversibility of the backup loss, and the API mapping. Nothing material is left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The server to stop backing up'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, ID-source, or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Turn off automatic backups for a server') that is immediately distinguishable from its mirror sibling hetzner_enable_server_backup. The tool name plus the explicit consequence sentence leave no ambiguity about what it does.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the inverse of hetzner_enable_server_backup, but the description never names that alternative or states when backups should be turned off. The destructive warning functions as a caution, not as selection guidance.

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