Создать сервер (платно!)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a paid operation requiring confirm: true, which is critical behavioral information. However, it does not mention whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or what the response contains.

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 three short sentences in Russian, with the purpose first, followed by the critical warning and a prerequisite. No redundant information; every sentence contributes.

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 creation operation with no output schema, the description lacks details about the response (e.g., new server ID), possible asynchronous behavior, or post-creation steps. It does warn about payment and confirms prerequisites, but a user would need more closure on what happens after the call.

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 already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds that the server is created 'по пресету' and points to the preset and OS image lists, but this information is also present in the schema descriptions for preset_id and os_id. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Создание нового облачного сервера по пресету' (creating a new cloud server by preset), which is a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_servers and delete_server by focusing on creation, and mentions the paid nature and confirm flag.

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?

It explicitly instructs the user to first look at list_server_presets and list_os_images, which tells the agent to gather necessary data before calling. It also warns that it's a paid operation requiring confirm, implying when to use (only for actual creation with confirmation). Alternatives are not named, but the context is clear enough.

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