delete_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely says 'Deletes' without mentioning permanence, reversibility, prerequisites (e.g., server must be stopped), or impact on associated resources. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency 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?

A single, short sentence that is immediately informative and not padded with unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core action.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, but deletion is irreversible. The description lacks essential context such as whether the action is permanent, whether associated resources are affected, or any safety warnings. This makes it incomplete for a destructive operation despite its simplicity.

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% for the single parameter serverInstanceNo, whose description '삭제할 서버 인스턴스 번호' (Server instance number to delete) is clear. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '서버 인스턴스를 삭제합니다' (Deletes the server instance) clearly states a specific verb (delete) and resource (server instance), distinguishing it from siblings like stop_server, start_server, and create_server.

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 implies usage through the verb 'delete', but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Given sibling tools like stop_server and start_server, there is no guidance on when deletion is appropriate versus other lifecycle operations.

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