server

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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations besides openWorldHint, the description adds useful safety context: 'confirm for destructive ops,' 'reveal opt-in only,' and optional instance selection. It discloses secret-masking defaults and the need for confirmation, which is valuable behavioral transparency, though it does not mention all side effects like volume deletion.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences deliver purpose, action signatures, and safety notes with zero filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 complex 26-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key decision points: action selection, safety, and high-level parameters. The action signatures and safety section are sufficient for initial invocation, though a few action-specific fields and the meaning of openWorldHint are not elaborated, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description goes beyond it by grouping parameters per action (e.g., get(uuid, format?, projection?, reveal?), create(name, ip, private_key_uuid)). This action-to-parameter mapping adds significant semantic meaning not obvious from the flat schema, though some update fields remain unlisted.

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 opens with 'Server CRUD and validate,' naming the exact resource and operations. It uniquely identifies the tool's scope and explicitly distinguishes it from the resource tool for listing servers, resolving possible sibling ambiguity.

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?

It clearly states that server listing is handled by the resource tool, not this tool, and enumerates the specific actions. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool for adjacent operations, but the action list and the pointer to resource for listing provide solid selection guidance.

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