instance_create

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the record is persisted to the database, the scheduler applies it asynchronously later, and the call cannot confirm the instance is live. That async/eventual-consistency caveat is exactly the kind of information an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: purpose first, alternative second, behavioral caveat last. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, what happens to it, and the key limitation on confirmation. It does not indicate what the call returns (e.g. an id or the created record), which would help close the loop on a create operation.

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 seven parameters (hostname, port, server_name, listen_https, etc.) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage but merits only 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 ("Register a new instance for the scheduler to manage") and immediately differentiates it from instance_update. An agent can tell which sibling to pick without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes modification cases to instance_update ("Use instance_update to change one"), giving a clear alternative for the adjacent operation. It stops short of stating preconditions or when-not-to-use cases (e.g. duplicate hostnames), so not a full 5.

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