Create Compute Instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the creation action without mentioning important traits such as required IAM permissions (e.g., compute.instances.create), potential cost implications, whether the operation is synchronous or long-running, or that the instance will use default image/network/machineType values. An agent gets no extra behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the phrase 'with simple parameters' contributes little and could be removed. It is appropriately sized but slightly padded.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description gives no context about expected result, possible delays, prerequisite permissions, or side effects. For a mutating cloud resource creation tool, this is insufficient context for an agent to reliably invoke it without surprises. The schema documents parameters, but broader operational context 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has an explanatory description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the phrase 'simple parameters,' which is vague and not informative. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description neither enhances nor contradicts it.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Compute Engine VM instance'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gcp-compute-list-instances, gcp-compute-delete-instance, and gcp-compute-start-instance. Even without mentioning alternatives, the action and resource are unambiguous and not a tautology of the tool name.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to create a new Compute Engine VM instance. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, but among the sibling list, no other tool has a create-instance responsibility, so the use case is implied strongly enough. It lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance, but the naming and description make the intended scenario evident.

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