order_server

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds the critical consequence — charging the credit balance or creating an invoice — plus the dry-run default, the confirmation gate, and the 10–30 minute deploy window. This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the cost warning, and every clause earns its place: scope, charge consequence, dry-run default, real-order recipe, deploy timing. No filler.

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 16-parameter, high-stakes ordering tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical asymmetry (validate vs. charge), the consent prerequisite, and where to check progress. Nothing an agent needs to avoid an unintended purchase is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between dry_run and confirm and the cost implication attached to them. It doesn't touch the other 14 parameters, but those are already fully documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (order) and resource (instant or stock server) and even names the underlying endpoint (eq/order_instance). An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like list_presets, get_stock_server, or create_reinstall_task.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the safe path (default dry_run=true validates without charging), the condition for a real order (dry_run=false AND confirm=true after explicit user consent on cost), and the follow-up for status (check_task). No inference required.

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