Provision Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses initial server status (PROVISIONING or WAITING) and hints at billing constraints. However, it does not cover authentication requirements, potential errors, or full side effects (e.g., cost 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and then detail requirements. Every phrase is necessary; no wasted words.

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?

The description fails to specify return values (e.g., server ID or status). Given 6 parameters and no annotations, it should cover more behavioral context, such as async nature or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a provisioning tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing sibling tools for configurationId and osImageId, and explaining the billing enum constraint ($100 minimum balance for DAILY). This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'Provision a new server with the selected configuration,' specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings, which are mostly CRUD or actions on existing servers.

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 explicitly lists required inputs (configurationId, billingPeriod, osImageId) and references sibling tools for obtaining them. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the prerequisites provide clear guidance.

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