Vultr MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Smart identifier resolution' for gateway identification, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'Success confirmation' hints at the return but is vague.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, auth needs), error cases, and the exact format of the success confirmation. For a delete tool, this gap is significant.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'gateway_identifier' as 'Gateway label or ID' with smart resolution, and 'export_id' as 'Export ID to delete'. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples or format details.

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 resource ('export from a storage gateway'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete' or other delete_* tools, which would require a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other delete operations or related tools like 'add_export'. It lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or typical scenarios for deletion.

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