Vultr MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It uses bullet-like formatting for clarity without unnecessary verbosity. However, the 'Smart identifier resolution' note could be integrated more smoothly, and the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage and constraints would improve completeness.

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 includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly explains all three parameters ('script_identifier', 'name', 'script'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., script content type) or the implications of null values.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a startup script'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_startup_script' and 'delete_startup_script' by specifying this is an update operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'update_user' or 'update_record'.

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?

The description provides some usage context by mentioning 'Smart identifier resolution: use script name or UUID,' which helps the agent understand how to identify the script. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create/delete) or any prerequisites, leaving the guidelines implied rather than explicit.

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