provision_hetzner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action is destructive and creates billable infrastructure, along with required confirmation flags. This is significant, but it does not describe what happens after provisioning (e.g., return value, connectivity checks) or irreversible consequences beyond 'destructive'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by safety requirements. Every word earns its place with 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?

This is a complex tool with 14 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and safety gate, but it does not explain the provisioning workflow, what the response looks like, or how to use the hetzner_inventory sibling for browsing types/locations (which the schema property descriptions reference). It is minimally viable but lacks depth for such a complex operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the confirm parameter and the --allow-destructive flag, but this is already partially captured in the schema (confirm: 'Must be true to proceed'). No new parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly that it provisions a new server on Hetzner Cloud via Coolify, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_server and hetzner_inventory, which handle existing servers or inventory.

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?

Implies usage for creating new servers by the phrase 'Provision a new server' and provides explicit prerequisites (--allow-destructive flag and confirm:true). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like manage_server for existing servers, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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