create_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new server' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, what happens on failure, rate limits, or expected response format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects completely undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication, as it fails to provide necessary context for such a complex operation.

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 complex mutation tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage (only the 'ssh_keys' parameter has a description), the description adds zero information about any of the 9 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'server_type', 'image', 'location' mean, what format they expect, or how they interact. For a complex tool with many parameters, this is severely inadequate.

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 'Create a new server' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other creation tools in the sibling list like 'create_firewall' or 'create_volume', nor does it clarify what type of server or in what context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'create_network', 'create_volume'), there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for server creation versus other infrastructure components.

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