change_server_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (powered-off state) and hints at resource scaling behavior, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. The 'upgrade_disk' parameter description in the schema adds some behavioral context about downgrade limitations.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose followed by a critical prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text or redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a critical prerequisite. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, side effects beyond scaling, or how this differs from similar update operations among the many sibling tools.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add explicit parameter information, but the schema provides good coverage for 'server_type' and 'upgrade_disk'. The 'id' parameter lacks description in both schema and description, but overall parameter understanding is adequate given the context.

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 action ('change the type of a server') and the effect ('scales resources'), which distinguishes it from generic update operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_server' or 'list_server_types' beyond the specific resource scaling focus.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Server must be powered off'), which is essential usage guidance. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_server' or explain if this is for scaling only versus other server modifications.

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