Удаление выделенного сервера

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

The description clearly states that all data on the server will be lost irreversibly, which is destructive behavior. However, the annotations include destructiveHint=false, directly contradicting the description. This is a serious annotation contradiction, so the score is 1.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences front-load the action, then provide a critical warning and a user-confirmation instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the irreversible data loss consequence, and the required confirmation step. It is complete and self-contained, despite the annotation contradiction.

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 schema covers the only parameter (dedicated_id) with a complete description, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Удаляет' (deletes) and clearly identifies the resource as 'выделенный (dedicated) сервер' (dedicated server). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_server (regular server) and other delete operations.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the operation with the user before calling, which is a meaningful usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_server for regular servers), so it falls short of a 5.

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