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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the first call costs money, returns an actionId, requires user approval before calling executeConfirmedAction, installs Ubuntu, moves the app, handles DNS conditionally, and never orders a second server on resume. This is unusually transparent for a mutating, paid operation.

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 long but every sentence delivers essential workflow information: purpose, cost warning, approval requirement, post-confirmation behavior, DNS branching, resume semantics, and parameter requirements. It is organized chronologically and front-loaded with the core purpose before the operational details.

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 complex, money-spending, multi-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full contract: cost, approval step, response actionId, server-side workflow, DNS behavior, resume behavior, required and optional parameters, and authentication. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool safely.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains that packageId comes from listVpsPackages, that domain is an optional custom domain, and marks appName and packageId as required. It does not explicitly mention the sessionKey parameter or its authentication context, but the closing 'Requires authentication' partially covers that gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Move a deployed Osir app from the shared free tier onto a paid VPS owned by the user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like orderVps, buildVpsInstance, or osirAppDeploy because it targets the migration of an already-deployed app onto user-owned infrastructure.

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 gives clear context on when to call it, including prerequisites (deployed app, packageId from listVpsPackages) and a conditional workflow (first call stages an order, subsequent calls with BUILDING/BUILD_FAILED resume the move). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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