delete_server

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that all data on the server is destroyed, that the action is irreversible, that unused days are credited back to the balance, and which OAuth scope is required. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before committing to an unrecoverable call.

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?

One compact sentence packs the effect, the destructiveness, the reversibility, and the scope; the irreversible warning lands early. Zero filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the effect, the safety consequence, the billing side effect, and the authorization requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and cautiously.

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?

Both parameters already carry full schema descriptions, including the srv-<n>/sh-<n> id forms and the typed-name confirmation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing further about the parameters — notably it never mentions the typed-name safety gate itself.

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?

Names a specific verb (delete) and resource (server or shared account) and states the blast radius ('everything on it'), so it is unmistakable against siblings like get_server, power, or resize_server. No other sibling promises deletion, so no disambiguation is needed.

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 gives the required permission scope ('servers:delete') and warns it cannot be undone, which implies a high-stakes, last-resort operation, but it never says when to prefer it over stop/power-off or how to confirm the target first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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