protect-vhost

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) but no destructiveHint. The description 'protect from deletion' suggests a state change but doesn't disclose if protection is idempotent, whether it overrides existing protections, or what happens if the vhost is already protected. No details on side effects or permissions. With minimal annotation coverage, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary.

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 lack of output schema, parameter descriptions, and behavioral details, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of protection (e.g., whether it prevents deletion of the vhost itself or its contents) or how to reverse it. The tool's simplicity does not excuse missing critical context for correct 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., vhost name format, required uniqueness) or any constraints. For a tool with no parameter documentation, the description should compensate but fails to add any semantic 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 'Protect a virtual host from deletion' clearly states the verb (protect) and resource (virtual host), and the specific action (from deletion). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'delete-vhost' and 'unprotect-vhost', as protection is an intermediate state.

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 does not explicitly state when to use or not use the tool. The existence of sibling 'unprotect-vhost' implies protection is reversible, but no context is given about prerequisites (e.g., vhost must exist) or when protection is needed (e.g., before deletion). Usage is implied but not guided.

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