deploy_gpu_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a real, billable, mutating operation ('charges the caller's Kilawatt wallet and starts an actual machine') and details the dry-run safety valve. It stops short of stating failure/refund behavior, auth prerequisites, or what happens to the node when duration elapses.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the provisional/billing nature and the dry-run escape hatch are both front-loaded where an agent will read them.

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 critical facts for a 5-param, no-annotation, mutating tool: cost incurred, machine actually started, and a safe preview path. With no output schema present, it could say more about what a successful provision returns (node id, endpoint, expiry), which is the remaining 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 every parameter already has documented meaning, including dry_run's pre-authorization semantics. The description reinforces dry_run's behavior but adds no syntax, format, or unit details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Provision') and resource ('real GPU compute on Kilawatt Cloud'), plus the side effects (charges the caller's wallet, starts an actual machine). An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to set dry_run=true to price a run and check balance, spend caps, rate limits and concurrency without provisioning. That is clear usage context, but there are no alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g. how to stop or resize an existing node).

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