create_rental

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavior: per-minute billing, asynchronous pending status, provisioning time, idempotency key generation, and default open-ended duration. This exceeds transparency expectations.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose—cost, confirmation, async flow, timing, next steps, duration policy, idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words.

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 the tool's complexity (billing, async provisioning, open-ended vs. capped duration) and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: return shape (rental_id/status), follow-up action, cost warning, and stopping mechanism. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters, the description adds meaningful context: how 'hours' behaves relative to the default, that node_id comes from list_gpus, and that type only supports 'jupyter'. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 opens with 'Start renting a GPU', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on listing, getting, or destroying rentals.

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 operational guidance: confirm with user, use open-ended by default, only pass 'hours' when user requests a limit, and call get_rental once instead of polling. This is exactly the kind of when/how guidance needed.

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