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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), warns about a key limitation ('does not remove it from virtual machine'), and suggests a use case ('remove unused SSH keys'). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the key is still in use.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides a critical warning, and the third reinforces usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the basic action and a key limitation, but doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or broader system implications. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more completeness would be beneficial.

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, with the single parameter 'publicKeyId' well-documented as 'Public Key ID' of type integer. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Delete a public key from your account') and identifies the resource ('public key'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_deletePublicKeyV1 (none exist) or VPS_attachPublicKeyV1, though the distinction is implied through the 'delete' vs 'attach' verbs.

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 ('to remove unused SSH keys from account'), which helps guide usage. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the warning about not removing keys from virtual machines offers practical exclusion guidance.

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