hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation (implied by 'delete') and adds crucial context about the side effect: 'Any virtual machine that has this firewall activated will lose sync with the firewall and will have to be synced again manually.' This goes beyond basic function to warn about operational impacts, though it lacks details on permissions or error handling.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: the first states the core action, the second warns of a critical side effect, and the third reinforces usage. Each sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Minor redundancy exists ('Delete' and 'remove' are synonymous), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering essential context. It explains what the tool does, highlights a key behavioral consequence, and provides usage guidance. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error responses, or confirmation steps, which would be beneficial for a deletion tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (firewallId and ruleId are clearly documented), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'specific firewall rule' and 'specified firewall' but does not explain ID formats, sourcing, or validation rules. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Delete a specific firewall rule') and resource ('from a specified firewall'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like VPS_deleteFirewallV1 (which deletes entire firewalls) and VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 (which modifies rules). The verb 'delete' is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this endpoint to remove specific firewall rules') and mentions a key side effect ('Any virtual machine that has this firewall activated will lose sync...'), which helps inform usage decisions. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like VPS_deactivateFirewallV1 for broader changes.

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