VPS_purchaseNewVirtualMachineV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that setup may fail and manual intervention is needed, and that default payment method is used if none provided. However, it does not disclose the nature of the operation (e.g., financial transaction), required authentication, response format, or rate limits. The provided info is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 structured in three paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. However, the last sentence ('Use this endpoint to create new VPS instances') is somewhat redundant with the first sentence. Some sentences could be combined, making it slightly longer than necessary but still readable.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: action, failure handling, payment fallback. However, it omits how to obtain item_id (catalog), what the setup parameter accepts, and what the response contains. Sibling tools exist for catalog lookup, but the description does not reference them, leaving gaps in completeness.

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% but parameter descriptions are minimal: 'setup parameter' is a meaningless placeholder. The description adds value for payment_method_id (default behavior) but fails to clarify the 'setup' parameter's purpose, format, or required values. Thus the description does not sufficiently compensate for the schema's vagueness, scoring below the baseline of 3.

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 purchases and sets up a new virtual machine, with the phrase 'Use this endpoint to create new VPS instances.' This distinguishes it from siblings like VPS_getVirtualMachinesV1 (list) and VPS_setupPurchasedVirtualMachineV1 (post-purchase setup). However, it does not explicitly differentiate between purchase and setup actions, which could cause confusion with the setup sibling.

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 some context like fallback if setup fails and default payment behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison to VPS_setupPurchasedVirtualMachineV1 or billing tools is given, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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