panelica_remote_mysql_delete_v1_remote_mysql_hosts_id

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint and readOnlyHint false; the description reinforces this with a WARNING that the resource is permanently removed and adds the required scope 'databases:delete'. It also clarifies irreversibility. No contradiction.

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?

Each line delivers distinct information: action, HTTP method, category, required scope, and destructiveness warning. No filler. Well structured and front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter delete with destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential operational facts: endpoint, scope, and permanence. It does not mention behavior for missing IDs or return codes, but no output schema exists and idempotency is covered by annotations.

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%, with the only parameter `id` fully described as a path parameter. The description adds no further parameter information, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete remote MySQL host') and includes the HTTP DELETE method. The category and endpoint make it distinct from the sibling get/post operations. The action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., GET to list, POST to create) or any prerequisites/exclusions. The verb implies usage, but there is no explicit context or condition. This is a clear gap.

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