nexterm_delete_backup_provider

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The word "Permanently" reinforces irreversibility, but the description says nothing about what happens to existing backups that reference the provider, whether the call fails when backups exist, or what authorization is required.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect. The second sentence is tangential to the call itself but does carry genuine scope information, so it earns its place without bloating the definition.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already carry the safety signals, this is close to sufficient. What is missing is how to source provider_id and the blast radius of deletion (dependent backups or schedules), which matters for an irreversible, non-idempotent operation.

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 description coverage is 0% – provider_id has only a type and minLength, no meaning. The description never mentions the parameter, how to obtain a provider ID (e.g., via nexterm_get_backup_storage or nexterm_list_provider_backups), or what format it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Permanently delete a configured backup provider"), which is unambiguous and inherently separable from the nearest sibling, nexterm_delete_backup_file. It does not explicitly name that sibling or any other to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "delete" – there is no statement of when to use this versus nexterm_delete_backup_file or nexterm_restore_backup. The clause about credential creation/update not being exposed is a useful scope constraint (it tells the agent not to hunt for a create/update provider tool) but it is not a when-to-use rule.

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