Vultr MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the script becomes active immediately, what happens on duplicate names, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section could be more specific given that an output schema exists, making that part slightly less efficient.

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 creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides basic information but lacks important context. It covers what the tool does and lists parameters, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error conditions that would be crucial for safe invocation.

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 description lists all three parameters with brief explanations, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate. It mentions 'script_type' can be 'boot' or 'pxe' which adds value, but doesn't explain format requirements for 'script' content, naming constraints for 'name', or the implications of the 'boot' default value. The description adds some semantic context but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new startup script, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_common_startup_script' by not mentioning 'common' and from 'update_startup_script' by specifying 'new'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools with similar naming patterns.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_common_startup_script' or 'update_startup_script'. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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