server_provision

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description warns about creating a billable resource, mentions the 3-5 minute initialization delay, specifies required API tokens, and notes the blocking safe mode. This adds rich behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then lists modes, prerequisites, warnings, and timing. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Capitalization and colons enhance readability.

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 complexity (6 parameters, enums, multiple providers, security constraints), the description covers all essential aspects: core function, default behavior, alternatives, prerequisites, risks, and timing. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be explained. Complete for effective use.

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 does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only restates defaults and modes. No extra semantic value for individual parameters is provided.

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 it provisions a new server on a cloud provider, with specific verb 'Provision' and resource 'server'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_audit, server_backup, etc., by being the creation action. The default mode and alternatives are explicitly mentioned.

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 states when to use (provisioning a server), provides a blocking condition (KASTELL_SAFE_MODE=true), and describes alternative modes (bare, dokploy) with distinct behaviors. Also gives environment variable requirements, which serve as prerequisites.

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