resize_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses immediate prorated charging from balance, that the new price takes effect afterwards, and that downgrades are rejected. It omits whether the server is rebooted or taken offline during the resize, and whether an order record is produced (get_order exists), which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then billing consequence, then the failure condition, then the required scope. 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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, cost implications, and refusal condition. The main omissions are the operational impact (downtime/reboot) and any indication of what the call returns or whether an order is generated.

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% and both parameters already document their expected formats (srv-<n>/sh-<n> from list_servers, plan id from list_plans). The description adds the constraint that the plan must be larger and of the same kind, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource: promote a server or shared account to a larger plan of the same kind. It is immediately distinguishable from create_server, delete_server, and list_plans, and the 'same kind' qualifier rules out cross-type moves.

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 bounds the operation with 'up to a bigger plan' and 'Smaller plans are refused', which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not name alternatives, but there is no sibling that competes with this action, so the guidance is adequate.

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