cloud_insts_act

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether actions are destructive, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur (e.g., stopping, rebooting). The phrase 'Proxy for cloud.instances.action' is vague and lacks depth.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences. While it is not overly long, it could be better structured with bullet points or separate sections for parameter resolution. It is concise but lacks clear organization.

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?

Given 9 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the action parameter's valid values, other optional parameters, or the return value. The tool's complexity demands more comprehensive coverage to be fully useful.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only addresses project_id and region_id resolution, leaving instance_id, action, activate_profile, extra_headers, extra_query, extra_body, and timeout unexplained. Users get no help on how to set these or what values are valid beyond the schema types.

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 it is a proxy for cloud.instances.action, implying it performs actions on instances. It explains resolution of project_id and region_id, which clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly list the actions or distinguish them from sibling tools like cloud_insts_ls or cloud_insts_del.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to pass project_id and region_id, including resolving from names using other tools and defaulting when not provided. This helps the agent know how to use the tool correctly and which alternative tools to call for resolution.

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