Permanently delete on-demand server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it names the required permission scope (services:manage), states that no disk or IP is preserved, that no customer-controlled refund exists, and that the operation is blocked while payment confirmation is unresolved. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotation block.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible action and its scope, then prerequisites, consequences, and preconditions in descending priority. Nothing is wasted, though 'This preserves no disk or IP' is slightly awkward phrasing for a deletion operation.

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, no-output-schema mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: authorization scope, irreversibility, refund policy, blocking condition, and a data-export warning. No material gap remains.

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 100%, so both 'id' and 'acknowledge_permanent_destruction' are already documented, and the required const=true constraint is enforced structurally. The description's 'Export required data first' reinforces the acknowledgement parameter but adds no new syntax or format detail, 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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('tenant-owned on-demand server') plus a scope qualifier ('before expiry'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling delete_* operations on networks, snapshots, functions, and DNS zones.

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?

Provides strong preconditions: 'Export required data first' and the note that the call is 'refused while payment confirmation is unresolved' tell the agent when the call will and won't succeed. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. list_temp_vms/get_temp_vm for inspection, or expiry-based teardown), so it is clear context without explicit sibling routing.

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