Recreate VPS

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

The annotation already provides destructiveHint: true, but the description goes further by specifying "DESTROYS ALL DATA," clarifying the scope of destruction. This adds context beyond the structured annotation. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 only two sentences: the first states the action, the second delivers a critical warning. It is front-loaded, scannable, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the description sufficiently conveys the primary risk (data loss). It might also mention irreversibility or service interruption, but the annotation and schema fill in key gaps, making the description adequate for an agent to understand the critical action and its consequences.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (vm_id, password, template_id), so the description does not need to explain them. It adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the descriptive load.

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 action: "Recreate (reinstall) a virtual machine." The verb is specific, and the parenthetical 'reinstall' removes any ambiguity. It distinguishes itself from sibling VPS tools (e.g., vps_start, vps_restart, vps_get) by focusing on the reinstall operation.

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 makes the usage context obvious: use this tool when you want to reinstall a VPS. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools, there is no other reinstall operation, so the intent is clear. The "DESTROYS ALL DATA" warning also signals to avoid using it when data preservation is needed.

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