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 clearly states the operation is DESTRUCTIVE, erases all data including deployed applications, and cannot be undone. It also discloses that the install is asynchronous, requires authentication, and returns an actionId that must be confirmed before execution.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence adds necessary operational detail. The destructive warning is front-loaded, and the Required/Optional grouping plus explicit next steps keep the information scannable despite its length.

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 asynchronous mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, parameter sourcing, irreversible data loss, async completion detection, and the required user approval workflow. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool safely and follow up correctly.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains instanceId, operatingSystemId, sshKeyIds, hostname, and swap in detail, including default behavior, allowed swap values, and where to obtain valid IDs. This is far more useful than the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Stage an operating system install on a VPS instance.' It also explicitly states that this is how a reinstall works, which distinguishes it from VPS lifecycle siblings like orderVps, deleteVpsInstance, and getVpsInstanceDetails.

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 explicitly lists required and optional parameters, points to listVpsOsTemplates and listMySshKeys as sources for valid IDs, and warns that omitting an SSH key may leave the user unable to log in. It also gives the exact post-install workflow: poll getVpsInstanceDetails until buildState is COMPLETE, then present the returned actionId and call executeConfirmedAction if the user approves.

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