Remove Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does disclose that the operation destroys configuration and includes a guard against deleting the default server. It omits reversibility, effect on running tasks/services bound to that server, permission requirements, and failure behavior, which are material for a destructive tool.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the key constraint in parentheses. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed, and the core destructive action plus one guard is covered. But for a destructive tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should also address identifier format and side effects on running services to be fully sufficient.

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% for the single 'server' parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not: it never states whether the identifier is a name, URL, ID, or index, nor whether it must match an entry from list_servers. An agent could easily pass the wrong identifier format.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('删除指定服务器的配置' – delete the specified server's configuration), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like list_servers or set_default_server. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the destructive action is clear on its own.

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?

It supplies one important 'when-not' condition (the default server cannot be deleted), which is real usage guidance. However, no alternative path is offered (e.g., use set_default_server first) and no preconditions like required permissions or server-state are mentioned.

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