instance_create

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects itself, but it only states that a new instance is created and that created-instance information is returned. It does not mention billing consequences, provisioning time, required permissions, or irreversibility, which are significant for a create operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement and then uses a compact, scannable Args list for the remaining content. It is necessarily long given 20 parameters, but every line earns its place apart from the stray 'ctx' entry and the redundant Returns line.

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?

Given the large parameter surface and no annotations, the description covers all parameter names and the return value, and the output schema handles the response shape. However, it does not explain lifecycle implications, billing, or how valid region and plan values should be discovered, so an agent is not fully equipped to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 0%, and the Args list compensates by naming every schema property with a plain-language explanation, concrete examples for region and plan, and a pointer to list_os for valid os_id values. It loses a point because some entries are tautological ('label: Label for the instance') and 'ctx' is listed even though it is not in the input 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 description opens with 'Create a new instance,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation among the instance_* siblings and other create tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with bare_metal_create or db_create, but 'instance' is concrete enough to route the agent correctly.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as instance_update for modifying an existing instance or bare_metal_create for creating a bare-metal server. The only cross-reference is 'use list_os to get available options,' which is parameter help rather than usage steering.

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