Spotinst MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses critical traits: it is destructive (explicitly labeled 'DESTRUCTIVE'), requires a safety confirmation ('confirm=true'), and mentions an optional parameter default ('Defaults to SPOTINST_ACCOUNT_ID env var'). This covers key behavioral aspects like risk level and execution prerequisites.

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 front-loaded with key information ('DESTRUCTIVE' warning and purpose), uses bullet-like 'Args:' section for parameters, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter destructive tool, with no wasted 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, behavioral risks, parameter details, and usage prerequisites. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. It adequately addresses the complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all parameters. It clarifies 'vng_id' format (e.g., 'ols-abc12345'), 'updates_json' as a JSON string with an example, 'confirm' as a safety guard, and 'account_id' as optional with a default. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Update'), target resource ('AWS VNG (launch spec) configuration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_vng_azure' by specifying AWS. It provides a concrete example of what fields can be updated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use it (for updating AWS VNG configurations) and includes a safety guard ('Requires confirm=true'), but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly differentiate from alternatives like 'update_vng_azure'. It implies usage context through the example but lacks explicit sibling comparisons.

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