yougpu_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the config fallback for ssh_key_ids and the dependency on offers data, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or lifecycle behavior (e.g., whether the instance starts immediately, if it is created in a stopped state).

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and every clause earning its place. It efficiently conveys the core action, prerequisites, and a parameter default.

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?

This is a create tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides a few hints but leaves two parameters undocumented and gives no indication of return values, errors, or post-creation steps (e.g., wait_ready). A more complete description would explain template_id and storage_drive_id and what the response contains.

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 only 33% (image_id and instance_name). The description adds meaning for offer_id (must come from offers) and ssh_key_ids (default to config if omitted), but leaves template_id and storage_drive_id completely unexplained. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

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 'Create a GPU instance,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also adds that offer_id and image_id come from offers, further distinguishing this creation tool from the list/get/stop/start/delete siblings.

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 states that offer_id and image_id are required and sourced from offers, implying the need to call list_offers first. It also gives clear guidance that ssh_key_ids can be omitted and will default to YOUGPU_SSH_KEY_IDS from config, which is a useful usage pattern. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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