agvps

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

Despite annotations covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: human review ('A person reads it'), no auth requirement ('no account'), and a rate limit ('a few messages an hour'). The rate limit is the standout disclosure an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the most salient fact ('Free'), and every clause carries information: accepted kinds, human handling, cost/account terms, and throttling. No 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 submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational facts (free, human-reviewed, no account, rate-limited). The only minor gap is that it does not clarify what happens after submission or whether a response is returned.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (kind, route, contact, message). The description echoes the intent of the required 'message' content ('what worked, what failed or what you miss') but adds no new field-level syntax, format, or constraint meaning.

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 states a clear action and recipient: 'Tell the people who run this service what worked, what failed or what you miss,' and enumerates the accepted feedback kinds. This sharply distinguishes it from the sibling VPS lifecycle tools, though the verb ('tell') is slightly softer than a crisp 'send feedback' framing.

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?

Context is implied by the enumeration of submission kinds (bug, idea, thanks), which hints at when it is appropriate, and it clarifies prerequisites ('No payment, no account'). However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus other tools or any exclusions, so guidance remains inferential.

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

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

The description discloses real behavioral context the annotations do not: provisioning latency (5-10 minutes), what the response carries (server id and secret, then IP and root password), and the payment mechanism. However, it describes renting/creating a billable server while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is a direct contradiction of the safety profile. Per the contradiction rule, this scores 1.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the offer and spec, then payment, then the return/timing behavior. Every clause carries information, though 'no account and no card' is mildly promotional rather than operational.

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, and the description compensates by stating what the response contains and how long the follow-up data takes to arrive, plus the renewal path. The only gap is that the contradiction with readOnlyHint is left unresolved for the calling agent.

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%, so the schema already documents hostname and the de/fi location enum; the description's mention of 'Germany or Finland' merely restates the enum. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (rent) and resource (Linux server) with full spec: 2 vCPU, 2 GB RAM, 25 GB NVMe, dedicated IPv4, Ubuntu 24.04. It differentiates from siblings by pointing at the renew route, so an agent can tell it apart from vps-small and vps-medium-renew.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (one-month rental, pay in stablecoins, no account or card) and names an alternative path for extension ('Extend it with the renew route'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer vps-small instead, but the sizing is fully stated so selection is straightforward.

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

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

The description says the tool extends a server and charges money ('each month is billed at the plan's monthly price', 'Pay in stablecoins with x402 or MPP'), which is a state-changing, billable operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false. This is a direct inconsistency between the stated behavior and the safety annotation.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before moving to payment and retention details; each sentence carries information. Slightly verbose, and 'Use the renew route that matches the server's plan' is vague filler rather than a crisp instruction.

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 two-parameter renewal tool with no output schema, the description covers payment rail, data/IP retention, and the consequence of not renewing, which is a lot of useful context. It omits what happens after expiry (can a lapsed server still be renewed) and any response/payment-confirmation behavior.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the billing note that the description repeats. The description adds only the provenance detail that the id comes 'from the order', which is marginal added meaning.

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 (extend/renew) plus the exact resource (a medium server) and the scope (one to six months), which cleanly separates it from vps-medium (ordering) and vps-small-renew (the other plan's route). The closing line 'Use the renew route that matches the server's plan' explicitly routes away from the sibling plan.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance ('Send the server id from the order and the number of months') and consequence context ('A server that is not renewed stops at its expiry date'). It never states an explicit when-not or a named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description promises a provisioning/purchase operation ('Rent a Linux server', 'Pay per month', 'The answer carries a server id and secret'), which creates and mutates state. This is a direct contradiction between the stated behavior and the structured safety hints, so the description's otherwise useful detail (payment rail, ~5-10 minute async delivery) can't be credited.

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?

One dense, front-loaded block: purpose and specs first, then payment, then return shape and timing, then the renew pointer. Every clause carries information, though the single run-on sentence is a little packed to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the two-stage return (id+secret immediately, IP and root password in 5-10 minutes) and the payment requirement, which an agent genuinely needs. It does not say how the follow-up IP/password are retrieved, leaving a small operational gap.

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%, so hostname and the de/fi location enum are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the country choice ('in Germany or Finland') without adding format or default semantics beyond the 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Rent a Linux server ... get root access') and pins the exact specs (1 vCPU, 1 GB RAM, 10 GB NVMe, IPv4, Ubuntu 24.04, DE/FI) that distinguish it from vps-medium. It also names the renew route, so an agent can place it among its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for the transactional flow (pay per month in stablecoins via x402 or MPP, no account, no card) and explicitly routes ongoing use to the renew route. It never states when this is the wrong choice versus vps-medium, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

The description describes a billable, state-changing extension of a server ('each month is billed', 'Extend a small server'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the declared safety profile. The otherwise useful details (data and IP preserved, expiry consequence, x402/MPP payment) cannot offset the contradiction.

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 action and duration, then covers payment and consequences efficiently. Slightly redundant, since the per-month billing sentence duplicates the months parameter description, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Covers the operation, payment mechanism, and post-expiry behavior, and no output schema exists to explain. However, with an idempotentHint of false and a payment flow, the description should clarify whether repeat calls double-bill and what the caller receives on success, neither of which is addressed.

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%, so both id and months are already documented with pattern, default, and min/max bounds. The description restates the same semantics ('server id from the order', 'number of months', billing per month) without adding format or validation detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Extend a small server by one to six months.' The 'small' qualifier and the closing instruction to use the plan-matching renew route clearly separate it from vps-medium-renew and the non-renewal 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?

Gives clear context: renew when the server is approaching expiry, with the consequence spelled out ('A server that is not renewed stops at its expiry date'), and routes to the plan-matching renew route. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool (vps-medium-renew) for medium-plan servers, leaving that inference to the agent.

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