Delete Server

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the operation's destructive nature is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by explicitly stating the consequences: 'irreversible' and 'all data on the server will be lost.' This goes beyond the structured annotation and helps the agent appreciate the impact.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences and a warning emoji to convey the purpose and the critical irreversible consequence. Every word earns its place, and the warning is appropriately highlighted without unnecessary detail.

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 simple delete operation with a single well-described parameter and destructive annotations, the description is quite complete. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the operation's outcome is predictable. It could have added context about server ID lookup or confirmation, but those are minor gaps.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (id) with a clear description: 'The server ID to delete.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 a server permanently') with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like power_on/off or reboot. The word 'permanently' reinforces finality and differentiates it from non-destructive operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as powering off or rebooting. The warning about data loss implies a final farewell scenario, but there is no direct statement like 'use this only when the server is no longer needed' or 'prefer power_off to preserve data.'

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