hcloud_create_server

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds real value beyond that: it states the return shape (preliminary Server info plus an Action object tracking creation progress) and enumerates operation-specific error codes such as primary_ip_version_mismatch (412) and placement_error (422). It does not explain the async action lifecycle in detail or what happens on partial failure, which keeps it below a 5.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and the error table is compact, high-signal content rather than prose padding. The redundant 'Create a Server' heading restates the tool name, a minor waste, but overall the definition is tight.

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 create tool with a deep nested body (20+ properties), no output schema, and high open-world impact, the description covers return shape and error modes but omits prerequisites, whether creation is billed or irreversible, and how the returned Action should be polled (the wait flag is only documented in the schema). This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent composing a correct 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?

Schema description coverage is reported at 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level information at all — it never explains the top-level body/wait split or the meaning of the wait flag. However, the nested body properties are individually well documented in the schema (name RFC 1123 constraint, user_data 32KiB limit, IP enable flags), so the effective gap is modest; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new Server') and the input schema's required fields (name, server_type, image) confirm the scope. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling create tools such as hcloud_create_volume or hcloud_create_load_balancer, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that the referenced Image, Server Type, Location, or Networks must already exist), and no mention of permissions or quota implications. The only context is the error table, which explains failures rather than when to call the tool.

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