hcloud_delete_server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known, and the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is immediate, the server becomes inaccessible, and attached resources (Volumes, Primary IPs, Floating IPs, Firewalls, Placement Groups) are detached as a side effect. That side-effect disclosure is exactly the extra value the description should provide. It falls short of 5 because it does not explain the consequence of detachment (whether IPs are released, whether volumes keep data) or how errors surface.

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 opening two lines are redundant, restating the tool name twice before any real content, which violates front-loading. The remaining sentence is dense and well-structured but carries awkward line breaks that add no meaning.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential consequences of invocation. The remaining gap is that it never ties in the 'wait' parameter or explains what happens on failure, though the schema handles the former.

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%, with both 'id' and 'wait' documented inline, including the default and polling semantics of 'wait'. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable but not additive under a fully covered schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (delete a Server) and is unambiguously distinguishable from the many sibling delete_* tools for other resources. However, the header plus the first body line ('Deletes a Server.') is a pure restatement of the name, so the real information only starts in the third sentence.

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?

It never says when to delete versus when to use an alternative such as hcloud_server_poweroff_action, hcloud_server_rebuild, or other lifecycle tools, nor does it state prerequisites like server protection being disabled first. The only guidance is an implicit permanence warning, which is inferred rather than stated.

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