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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds critical un-annotated behavior: the original server stays billed until deleted, only the 100 GB system disk is copied (work disk NOT copied), a new public IP is assigned, and the migration timing (~20 min fresh / ~5 min latest). These are consequential details an agent must surface before spending money.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the money warning, then packs prerequisites and the step flow densely. Long but nearly every clause carries operational information; the "[SPENDS MONEY]" emphasis and repeated billing warnings are slightly redundant with the title but justified for a costly irreversible-ish action.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what each call variant returns (GPU list with prices; price+warning+token; start confirmation) and where results appear afterward. For a complex, high-stakes, multi-step tool, this leaves nothing essential unsaid.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all six parameters; the description still adds value by explaining the stateful three-step progression of targetProductId (absent → lists GPUs with prices) and confirmationToken (absent → returns price/warning/token; present → starts), which the schema alone doesn't convey as a workflow.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ("Moves a server to ANOTHER GPU model in stock") and immediately clarifies the mechanism — a new server is created from the system disk while the original is untouched. This distinguishes it cleanly from gpucloud_create_server and gpucloud_restore_server among the many siblings.

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?

Explicitly lays out the when-to-use via prerequisites (backup option on, canLaunch, saved card, credits for one hour, budget/key caps) and the three-step call flow with each parameter combination. It also names follow-up tools (gpucloud_list_servers, gpucloud_get_server) so the agent knows the sequence.

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