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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses the 14.99 $/month cost with pro-rata vs prepaid billing mechanics, that disabling permanently deletes backups with no refund, that canDelete permission is required when backups exist, and that the confirmation token expires in 10 minutes and is single-use. It also names the required permission scope (servers:backup).

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-loaded with the core action and cost signal, and every clause carries real information. It is dense to the point of being run-on with nested parentheses, which slightly hampers scanning, but nothing is filler.

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 destructive, money-spending mutation with no output schema, all decision-critical facts are present: cost model, deletion/no-refund warning, permission requirements, two-step token mechanics, and valid parameter ranges. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates fully: hourLocal is 0-23 in Eastern time, retention is 1-7 daily backups, enabled is the on/off switch, and confirmationToken is the two-step token. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Specific verb (turns on/off, changes hour/retention) applied to a specific resource (a server's backup option), with concrete value ranges inline. It is clearly distinguishable from gpucloud_create_server_backup and gpucloud_restore_server_backup because it modifies the policy rather than creating or restoring a backup.

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 states the two modes of use: on/off requires a two-step confirmationToken flow, while hour/retention changes apply directly. It also explains the downstream consequence that enabling backups enables migration to another GPU via gpucloud_migrate_server, giving the agent a reason to choose one path over another.

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