ncloud_delete_mssql_server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds value by warning with '⚠️ Destructive' and explicitly stating 'Set confirm=true to execute.' This reveals the safety gate beyond annotation data. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context about the deletion's destructive nature.

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, front-loaded sentence with a warning emoji effectively communicates the destructive action and confirmation requirement. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 two parameters, the description adequately covers the destructive nature, the slave scope, and the confirm gate. Annotations provide the safety profile, and no output schema is present, so return-value details are not required. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention irreversibility explicitly.

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 both parameters, and the schema already describes the confirm requirement ('Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation'). The description's phrase 'Set confirm=true to execute' merely repeats schema info, adding no new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 specific action: 'Delete a Slave server instance from a Cloud DB for MSSQL cluster.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'Slave' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_delete_mssql_instance that delete the entire instance.

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 for deleting a slave server instance and explicitly mentions the confirm requirement for execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like deleting the whole MSSQL instance. The scope is clear enough for correct selection.

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