create_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a provisioning operation (implying creation/mutation) but doesn't describe what happens after provisioning (e.g., server state, time to complete, permissions required, or error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Provision a new custom SpinupWP server') and adds clarifying context ('MVP using existing infrastructure') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool (provisioning) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context for safe and effective usage is lacking.

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 documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context like why these specific parameters are needed for provisioning.

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 clearly states the action ('Provision a new custom SpinupWP server') and specifies the resource type ('server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_site or delete_server. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., reboot_server also involves servers). The 'MVP using existing infrastructure' adds useful context but doesn't fully articulate what makes this tool unique among server-related operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing infrastructure), compare to sibling tools like get_server or list_servers, or specify when not to use it (e.g., for modifying existing servers). The 'MVP using existing infrastructure' hints at context but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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