ruvds_create_server

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions that get_price_only avoids creation, but fails to disclose typical behavioral traits such as idempotency, immediate provisioning, permissions required, or any irreversible effects. The description is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.

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 brief, using two sentences to convey core functionality, parameter relationships, and sourcing hints. It is well-structured with front-loaded purpose and no filler. A minor deduction: the comma-separated list of ID sources is a bit dense.

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?

With 19 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description addresses only a subset (price mode, payment_period, os_id/template_id). It fails to explain the meaning and permissible values for required fields like cpu, ram, drive, ip, and drive_tariff_id, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains get_price_only, payment_period mapping (1=1mo, 3=3mo, 5=12mo), and exclusivity of os_id vs template_id. However, it omits explanations for many parameters (e.g., cpu, ram, drive, datacenter, tariff_id) that are not self-explanatory from their names alone.

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 tool's dual purpose: 'Create a VPS or get price only.' It distinguishes between creation and cost estimation modes, and references specific sibling tools (ruvds_list_datacenters, etc.) to locate required IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on using get_price_only for cost queries and notes that os_id or template_id must be provided exclusively. However, it lacks when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with potentially overlapping siblings like ruvds_server_cost, and doesn't clarify the choice between os_id and template_id.

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