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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it discloses that the disk is permanently deleted, that billing stops, that the action is irreversible, and that the instances:write scope is required. Those operational consequences are not derivable from the structured fields.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the destructive action and immediately followed by consequences and the guardrail. No filler sentences.

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?

A single-parameter operation with no output schema and full annotation coverage; the description supplies the permission requirement, the irreversibility warning, and the business consequence. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and instance_id is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information about instance_id.

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 ("Destroys a server") and immediately scopes the effect: the disk is deleted for good and billing stops. That effect statement distinguishes it from siblings like stop_instance without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear usage context: irreversible, so confirm with the user, and it requires instances:write. It does not explicitly contrast with stop_instance, which is the natural alternative for a non-destructive halt, so it stops short of naming when-not/alternatives.

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