delete_server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant context beyond this: it specifies what gets destroyed (files, databases, backups), emphasizes permanence ('cannot be undone'), mentions removal from the panel, and notes the admin/API key requirement. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and risks.

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 critical information (permanent deletion, warning), uses no wasted words, and structures key points efficiently in a single sentence. Every phrase adds value, such as specifying data types and prerequisites.

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 tool's high complexity (destructive action) and lack of output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, risks, prerequisites, and behavioral details. Annotations support this with destructiveHint, and no output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, making it well-rounded for agent use.

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% with a clear parameter description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no direct parameter information, but it implicitly reinforces the server_id's role by mentioning 'server' deletion. This provides slight additional context, raising the score slightly above baseline.

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 delete') and resource ('a server and ALL its data'), distinguishing it from siblings like suspend_server or reinstall_server by emphasizing complete removal. It specifies the scope includes files, databases, and backups, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use ('admin action', 'Requires Application API key') and when not to use without caution ('Consider create_backup before proceeding'). It distinguishes from less destructive alternatives by highlighting irreversible deletion, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools like suspend_server as alternatives.

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