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 describes key behavioral traits: the restore process is time-dependent on backup size, and it explicitly warns that 'All data on the virtual machine will be overwritten,' which is crucial for a destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral warnings and usage context in three concise sentences. Each sentence earns its place by adding critical information (process timing, data overwrite risk, recovery use case) with zero waste or redundancy.

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 restore operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, behavioral impact (data overwrite), and usage context. It could be more complete by addressing permissions, confirmation steps, or response format, but it provides sufficient guidance for safe invocation.

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 (backupId and virtualMachineId) adequately. The description does not add any meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints. 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 ('Restore a backup') and target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like VPS_restoreSnapshotV1 or VPS_getBackupsV1. It explicitly mentions overwriting VM data, which clarifies the scope beyond just initiating a process.

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 the tool ('to recover VPS data from backup points'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., VPS_restoreSnapshotV1 for snapshots vs. backups). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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