Create Server

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious fact that a server is created. It does not disclose consequences such as billing, default start behavior, or what resource identifiers are returned.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It is appropriately short, though the phrase 'configuration options' is generic and carries little 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?

With 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It omits what the success response contains, prerequisites such as SSH keys or networks, and any side effects, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name and schema.

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 the schema already documents all 14 parameters. The description mentions type and image but adds no format details or relationships 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?

The description states a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('a new server') and names the key required inputs (type, image, configuration options). It clearly distinguishes from update/delete server tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus other server tools such as hetzner_update_server, hetzner_delete_server, or list/get server tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, provisioning flow, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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