hcloud_server_change_protection_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context—yet it adds none. It does not explain that toggling 'delete' protection controls whether the server can be deleted, that delete and rebuild must currently match, that a long-running action is returned, or that the `wait` flag polls it. For a destructive configuration change, this is a substantial gap.

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 two sentences contain no waste and are front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; the second sentence merely restates the first.

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 a destructive mutation with a nested body, no output schema, and a potentially confusing delete/rebuild coupling, the description is far too thin. It omits consequences, permissions, the returned action, and the meaning of protection, leaving the agent to rely on annotations and schema alone.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema already documents id, delete, rebuild, and wait. The description contributes nothing—it never mentions the delete/rebuild protection flags, the constraint that they must share a value, or the polling behavior of `wait`—so it fails to compensate for the undocumented remainder.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Changes the protection configuration of the Server"), which distinguishes it from sibling change_protection tools for volumes, networks, and floating IPs. However, it never says what 'protection' actually means (delete/rebuild flags) or what effect the change has, so the purpose stays at the level of the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other Server mutation tools (rebuild, delete, update_server), no prerequisites, and no indication that this is the way to lock or unlock a server before deletion/rebuild. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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