Change Server Protection

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

The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose any additional traits like prerequisites or 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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key purpose. It is appropriately concise.

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 simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose clearly, though it could mention that the server must exist.

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 baseline is 3. The description briefly summarizes the boolean parameters (delete and rebuild) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool enables or disables delete and rebuild protection on a server, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling protection tools by specifically mentioning 'server'.

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 implies usage for protecting servers, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other change_X_protection tools). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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