Create Cloud Server instance

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

The [WRITE] tag and the guidance to never invent UUIDs add useful behavioral context. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description does not disclose whether creation requires elevated permissions, what happens if the name already exists, or what the response returns.

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?

Single compact sentence with the operation marker front-loaded and the endpoint and parameters in one line. Dense but readable, 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?

No output schema, no annotations covering return format, and only 22% schema coverage. The description covers the call well enough to invoke it, but for a write operation creating a server with 9 parameters, it omits success criteria, error behavior, and any response shape an agent would need to confirm the result.

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 low (22%), with only the region and security_groups parameters having descriptions. The description lists the parameters inline (name, network_id, flavor_id, image_id, security_groups[{name}], ssh_key, key_name, count), which maps the names to the API call but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. It does compensate a bit for the low coverage by enumerating parameters, but not enough to reach 4.

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 (create) and resource (Cloud Server instance) and even the exact HTTP endpoint, POST /ecc/v1/regions/{region}/servers. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like list_servers, get_server, and power_on_server.

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 says to obtain IDs from list tools and never invent UUIDs, which is strong guidance for required params. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use or reference specific sibling list tools by name, but the context is clear.

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