order_server

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description goes further by warning that funds are debited or an invoice is issued, explaining that dry_run only verifies availability without charging, and stating that deployment takes 10–30 minutes with status via check_task. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load the financial warning and default mode, then give the real-order recipe and status follow-up. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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, money-affecting tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the dangerous default, the safe dry-run path, the confirmation requirement, deployment duration, and post-order status lookup. Required and optional parameters are already fully documented in the schema.

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 meaningful operational nuance around dry_run and confirm: it frames confirm=true as requiring explicit user consent to the price, and explains the consequence of omitting it. This supplements the schema's existing parameter descriptions with the cost-safety context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Заказ instant- или stock-сервера (eq/order_instance)' — ordering a server. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, or manage servers, and there is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 explains the default dry_run mode, when to switch to a real order (dry_run=false and confirm=true), and requires explicit user consent to cost. It also directs the agent to check_task for deployment status, leaving no doubt about the correct invocation flow.

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