delete_server

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

The description adds no behavioral disclosure beyond the tool name. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or consequences of deletion, and with no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide this critical context.

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 a single short sentence, very concise and to the point. However, it essentially repeats the tool name and adds minimal information, making it slightly under-specified rather than appropriately structured.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'server configuration' entails, whether deletion is permanent, or any side effects, leaving important context missing for such a simple tool.

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 for the single parameter server_id is 100%, described as 'Server ID'. The description adds no information about parameters, but the schema already covers it, so baseline 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 'Delete server configuration' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (server configuration), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_server or get_server. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer delete_server over update_server or disconnect. Lacks any context for appropriate use.

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