komodo_delete_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it doesn't state that deletion is destructive/permanent, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what collateral effects occur (e.g., associated deployments). The 'Returns: Deletion confirmation' line is the only behavioral hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in one sentence and no filler. The docstring-style Args/Returns scaffolding is mildly redundant given the output schema, but overall tight.

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 mutation with no annotations, the definition omits the safety context an agent needs (irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects). The output schema does relieve it of describing return values, but that alone doesn't make it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does define the single parameter ('id: Server ID'), which clarifies what identifier is expected. It stops there, adding no format, source, or example for the 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+resource ('Delete a server'), which cleanly separates it from komodo_create_server and komodo_update_server. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, but the verb alone 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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning that this is irreversible. The agent gets a bare operation with no decision context.

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