services_orders_create_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that calling it provisions real services, incurs charges, may generate names when count > 1, or that retries are unsafe because the operation is non-idempotent. The description is consistent with the annotations, but contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The trailing 'POST /services/orders' endpoint path is redundant transport detail that takes space without helping an agent decide or parameterize the call.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent, deeply nested write operation with billing and provisioning consequences, and the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke it safely. With no output schema either, there is nothing to indicate what an order creation returns (order IDs, status).

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?

The single top-level 'body' parameter has no description, and the description never mentions it or the orders array it contains. The nested schema does describe many fields (productId, count, term, sshKeyIds, autoProlong), but the description does not compensate for the reported 0% coverage at the parameter level or clarify the nesting/required-field structure.

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 verb and resource ('Create service order') which is essentially a restatement of the tool name, plus a raw endpoint path. It conveys that this is a creation operation but gives no scope, such as whether it creates one or many services, provisions immediately, or bills the account. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like services_orders_get_price or services_get_price.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Critically, it never says whether a price lookup (services_orders_get_price) should precede this call before an order is committed.

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