sacloud-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the tool creates something (implying mutation) and shows the return structure, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if creation fails. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The initial sentence states the purpose clearly, but the detailed parameter and return documentation could be more integrated. The information is valuable but presented in a somewhat segmented format rather than flowing naturally.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter documentation and return structure, which is adequate but minimal. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks important context about authentication, error handling, and integration with other tools in the ecosystem.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 3 parameters in the Args section with clear explanations of each parameter's purpose, constraints (1-64 characters for name, max 512 for description), and optionality. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool creates a switch using the Sakura Cloud API, specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_bridge or create_router by focusing on switches, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other network creation tools beyond naming.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions it's for creating switches, there's no mention of prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus other network components, or how it relates to tools like get_switch_list or attach_servers.

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