arvan_delete_server

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

Annotations already label the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond that, only noting that force_delete_floating_ips releases IPs. No mention of irreversibility or data loss consequences.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for a parameter hint. No extraneous words, and the main action is frontloaded.

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 simple destructive tool, the description covers the basic action and one parameter. However, it lacks information on return value or post-deletion state, which could help an agent confirm success. Annotations fill some gaps but not all.

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%, placing the burden on the description. Only force_delete_floating_ips is explained ('also release IPs'), while server_id and region lack any semantic clarification.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'cloud server', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like arvan_rebuild_server or arvan_rename_server.

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 mentions the optional parameter force_delete_floating_ips but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., arvan_rebuild_server). No context for when to delete vs. other server actions.

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