hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive nature ('irreversible', 'delete all project data'), specifies cleanup scope ('networks, volumes, and images'), and mentions system impact ('free up system resources'). It doesn't cover error conditions or permissions, but provides strong behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste: first states action and scope, second warns of irreversibility, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value (operation details, warning, when-to-use).

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 and no output schema, the description provides strong context: clear purpose, irreversible warning, cleanup details, and usage guidance. It doesn't specify return values or error handling, but given the straightforward nature of a delete operation, this is reasonably complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (projectName and virtualMachineId are self-explanatory). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('completely removes'), target resource ('Docker Compose project from the virtual machine'), and scope ('stopping all containers and cleaning up associated resources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_stopProjectV1 (temporary) and VPS_deleteSnapshotV1 (different resource).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use this when you want to permanently remove a project and free up system resources') and when not to use ('This operation is irreversible and will delete all project data'), providing clear alternatives to temporary actions like stopping. It differentiates from other deletion tools by specifying the project context.

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