destroy_vps

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it states the operation is irreversible, requires confirm=true, and explains the nuanced behavior of release_ip_ids/release_disk_ids (releasing vs. detaching). This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies side effects on attached resources, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds the irreversibility note and optional parameter behavior. It is dense but not overly long, and each sentence adds value. The structure is logical: main action, safety warning, then parameter details. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-organized.

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 destructive operation with optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: default boot disk destruction, confirm requirement, and the release vs. detach distinction. It also points to list_vps for ID retrieval. While it does not mention output or any post-destroy effects, the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It explains the confirm flag (required for destruction) and details the release_ip_ids/release_disk_ids behavior, including their default (kept, unreleased) and how to obtain IDs via list_vps. vps_id is implicitly understood from context. This effectively compensates for the schema gap.

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: 'Permanently destroy a VPS and, by default, its boot disk.' This specifies a verb (destroy), a resource (VPS), and a critical default (boot disk), distinguishing it from sibling operations like stop_vps or poweroff_vps. The irreversibility is also flagged, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stop_vps for a graceful shutdown). However, it implies usage by noting the irreversible nature and the confirm requirement. It does reference list_vps for obtaining IP/disk IDs, which is a helpful prerequisite, but it lacks a clear when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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