delete_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers only the basic action. It doesn't mention that deletion is likely permanent/destructive, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are confirmation prompts, rate limits, or what happens to associated resources. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise at three words, front-loading the essential action and resource with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness for other dimensions.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meaning, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent lacks critical information needed to use this tool safely and effectively.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'id', and the tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever. While the parameter count is low (1), the description fails to explain what 'id' represents (e.g., server ID, numeric identifier) or where to obtain it, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for proper invocation.

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 a server' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (server), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other destructive operations like delete_firewall or delete_volume, which would require sibling tool awareness for optimal agent selection.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., server must be powered off), consequences (irreversible deletion), or when to choose this over similar operations like shutdown_server or reset_server. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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