Удаление сервера

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the non-obvious 2FA flow (first call returns hash, second call requires hash and code) and the possibility of quarantine. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide, though it omits details about resource side-effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second reveals the multi-step 2FA behavior and quarantine outcome. No filler or redundant details.

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 simple scope of the tool, the schema thoroughly documents parameters, and annotations signal the non-read-only, non-idempotent nature, the description adequately covers the key additional context (2FA flow, quarantine). It could be enhanced by mentioning what happens to associated resources, but this is not critical for successful 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 coverage is 100%—all three parameters are described in the schema (server_id required, hash from first DELETE request, code transmitted with hash). The description adds minimal new meaning beyond reinforcing the 2FA sequence, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 begins with 'Удаляет сервер' (Deletes a server), which clearly states the action and resource. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_server_disk_backup or delete_server_ip, which target different resources.

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 explains the two-step process for 2FA accounts, which is a usage guideline for this specific tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like shutdown_server, but the deletion purpose is self-evident, and the 2FA note provides clear operational context.

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