hcloud_server_create_image_action

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description goes well beyond: it discloses the consistency hazard on running servers, recommends shutdown, explains that backup Images are tied to the server's lifecycle and require the backup option, that snapshots survive server deletion, and that snapshots are billed per GB. That is exactly the kind of operational consequence annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then hazards, then the backup/snapshot tradeoff — a sensible order. There is mild redundancy between the title line, the first sentence of the body, and the second sentence restating that it snapshots current disk state, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 mutating, nested-body tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: safety preconditions, image type consequences, and billing. It stops short of saying what is returned (an Image and/or an async Action) and does not mention the default `wait` polling behavior, which matters for a long-running 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 coverage is 67% and the schema's own text for `type` is only 'Type of Image to create.' The description substantially enriches that enum by explaining lifecycle, availability precondition and billing for each value. It adds nothing for `labels`, `body.description` or the `wait` polling flag, but those are documented in 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Creates an Image (snapshot) from a Server') and elaborates on the mechanism (copying disk contents). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings hcloud_server_snapshot and hcloud_server_backup, which an agent will inevitably compare it against.

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?

Usage guidance exists at the operational level ('we recommend to shut down the Server prior to creating an Image') and at the subtype level (backup vs snapshot lifecycle/billing). However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling snapshot/backup tools, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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