Change plan

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: no payment is taken on plan change, remaining value is converted at the new price, and an upgrade shortens the service period. It also discloses required permissions (services:manage) and a full-access API key, which the structured fields do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then adds prioritised behavioral and prerequisite information in tight, imperative sentences. Every sentence carries useful weight, though it is slightly longer than a minimal ideal.

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 a destructive mutation with no output schema and annotations that only flag destructiveness, the description covers the essential billing semantics, prerequisites, and authentication requirements an agent needs to invoke it correctly. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description references get_plan_resources for resource IDs, adding procedural guidance, but does not expand on parameter formats or meanings beyond what the schema provides, keeping it at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change VPS plan') that unambiguously identifies the operation. The scope is narrowed to VPS plans, and related tools (calculate_plan_change, get_plan_resources) are named, so an agent can place it precisely in the plan-change workflow.

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 prerequisites: always call calculate_plan_change first, confirm new expiry with the customer, and use get_plan_resources for resource IDs. These are clear usage conditions, though it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like renew_service or order_service, so it falls short of a full 5.

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