Alias cũ của cloud_vps_create

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that sandbox=true gives a free 0-cost trial without a wallet, which is useful behavioral context not in the annotations. However it doesn't mention provisioning latency, billing impact, or what happens on failure.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the key routing information (alias, use the replacement) followed by the sandbox hint. No waste.

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?

A VPS-provisioning tool with 9 parameters at 11% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a sandbox note in the description. Missing guidance on required app_name, plan/package selection, billing mode, and what the call returns. Inadequate for the complexity.

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 only 11% – six of nine parameters (cpu, ram_gb, disk_gb, app_name, plan_code, billing_mode, package_slug, period) have no descriptions. The description only covers sandbox, adding no meaning for the other parameters. With such low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 this is a compatibility alias and points to the replacement tool 'cloud_vps_create'. It does not describe what creating a VPS actually does (provisions a virtual server with cpu/ram/disk), but for an alias tool the purpose is mainly to redirect callers. Adequate but thin on the actual resource action.

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 tells the agent to use cloud_vps_create for new integrations, implying this alias should only be used for legacy compatibility. The condition for using the alias itself isn't fully spelled out (when exactly must an old caller use this), but the primary routing guidance is clear.

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