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

Annotations supply title and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds the 20% price impact and the underlying API action, but omits whether this is an async action requiring polling, and does not note reversibility via disable_backup.

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, front-loaded with the core action and price note. The trailing API endpoint is mildly extraneous for an agent but is compact and not disruptive.

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 mutation with no output schema and partial annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and cost but leaves gaps around async action behavior and what happens to existing backups/data. Adequate but not 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('The server to protect.'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about server_id format or constraints, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 on automatic backups for a server'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling hetzner_disable_server_backup. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is immediately legible.

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 context (enabling automatic backups, with the 20% cost implication) is implied rather than stated as a when/when-not rule. There is no guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or when to prefer a snapshot/image tool instead.

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