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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explicitly labels the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE', specifies the safety requirement ('Requires confirm=true'), and notes the input format ('Pass updates as a JSON string'). This covers critical aspects like mutation nature and safety mechanisms, though it could add more on permissions or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with critical warnings and requirements. Each sentence adds value: the first highlights destructiveness and key constraints, and the Args section efficiently explains parameters without redundancy. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (destructive update with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters adequately. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or linking to sibling tools for context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all parameters: 'vng_id' is explained with an example, 'updates_json' specifies JSON string format, 'confirm' clarifies its safety role, and 'account_id' provides context. This effectively documents the parameters beyond the bare schema, though it could detail JSON structure or account_id usage more.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('Azure VNG configuration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'update_vng' by specifying 'Azure' context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the Azure 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 implies usage context through 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'Requires confirm=true', suggesting when to be cautious. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_vng' or other Azure-specific siblings, nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the safety guard.

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