Create on-demand server session (Coming soon)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call short-circuits with tempVmComingSoon before any paid intent, charge, host, IP, or service allocation — i.e., invoking it is a guaranteed no-op with no billing impact. It does not describe the required quote/idempotency handshake or error surface, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the critical availability status front-loaded before the backend behavior detail. Efficient, though it allocates all its budget to status rather than purpose.

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 9-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important current fact (it is unavailable and will not allocate anything) but says nothing about what the tool creates, its prerequisite quote flow, or the response shape. Adequate for steering the agent away, incomplete as a specification.

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 all 9 parameters (quote_token, idempotency_key, acknowledgements, credentials, ttl, profile, os_id) are already documented in the schema with cross-references to sibling tools. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 never states what the tool does — it only announces that ordering is disabled. The agent must infer the operation (provisioning a temporary on-demand server session) from the name and title. It is closer to a status/tautology note than a purpose statement, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like quote_temp_vm or order_service.

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?

"Customer ordering is disabled" is an implicit but strong when-not-to-use signal: an agent reading this should avoid calling it expecting a server. However, no alternative path is named (e.g., use quote_temp_vm or retry later), and there is no guidance on whether the call is safe to attempt for probing.

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