delete_backups_by_id

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the description's 'delete' wording is consistent but not additive. It does not disclose irreversibility, side effects on backup history or related resources, or any ownership/permission requirements, which prevents a higher score.

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 compact: one action sentence, the route, and terse parameter notes. There is no filler, and the most important action is stated first, though arguably more behavioral detail could be added without hurting conciseness.

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 2-parameter destructive operation, the description plus schema and annotations is enough to make a basic delete call, and the output schema covers return-value details. But it lacks contextual completeness around prerequisites, repeatability, and what 'deleting a backup' means in the system, so an agent cannot fully assess side effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does identify id as a path parameter and tells the agent to inspect GET or /schema to discover the body fields, which is genuinely helpful direction. However, it does not explain the id format, when body should be supplied, or what fields the body generally contains.

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') and the resource ('api backups'), and the exact DELETE route leaves little doubt about what is invoked. It is distinguishable from sibling delete operations by the resource name and id, though it does not explicitly contrast it with list_backups or create_backups.

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 tool versus the many related backup or delete_* tools, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The note about reading GET or /schema is a body-field discovery step, not a usage-context rule for selecting the tool.

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