oci_compute_instance_action

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

No annotations are provided, and the description doesn't disclose that these are mutating operations, that they may be asynchronous, or that they require certain instance lifecycle states. It only lists action names, which are already in the schema.

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?

A single, direct sentence that lists all valid actions. No fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, but without annotations or output schema, the description doesn't cover behavioral context like state changes or error conditions. It's adequate for basic selection but lacking depth.

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 covers both parameters fully, so baseline 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the enum values, which are already in 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs actions on compute instances and enumerates the five supported actions, distinguishing it from list/get tools and from ADB start/stop 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?

The description implies when to use it (when an action on a compute instance is needed) by naming the resource and actions, but it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state prerequisites. Clear context, but no exclusions.

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