AWS MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond this—it specifies 'by VPC ID in the given region', which is useful but doesn't elaborate on side effects (e.g., cascading deletions) or permissions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Delete a VPC') and includes essential details ('by VPC ID in the given region'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's destructive nature (annotations cover this), no output schema, and moderate parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and action but lacks critical context like prerequisites (e.g., VPC must be empty), irreversible effects, or error conditions, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 'region' and 'DryRun' documented but 'VpcId' lacking description in the schema. The description mentions 'VPC ID' and 'region', partially compensating for the gap. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or the purpose of 'DryRun' beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 ('a VPC by VPC ID in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete-subnet' or 'delete-route-table' by specifying VPC deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools beyond naming the resource.

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., VPC must be empty), warn about irreversible consequences, or suggest alternatives like 'update-vpc-attribute' for non-destructive changes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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