AWS MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies deletion by ID and region, but doesn't elaborate on what 'destructive' entails (e.g., irreversible removal, impact on dependent resources) or mention the DryRun parameter's purpose for permission checks.

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 wasted words—it directly states the tool's action and key parameters. It's appropriately front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description is minimal but functional. It covers the basic operation but lacks depth on behavioral implications (e.g., idempotency effects, error conditions) or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage in complex AWS workflows.

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 50%, with the 'region' parameter documented but the nested 'InternetGatewayArgs' object lacking descriptions for its properties beyond IDs. The description mentions 'by ID in the given region', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's implied, such as explaining the DryRun parameter's utility or format requirements for IDs.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('an internet gateway by ID in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach-internet-gateway' or 'delete-vpc', which might be related operations in the same AWS context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the gateway must be detached first), consequences, or related tools like 'detach-internet-gateway' or 'delete-vpc' that might be needed in sequence.

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