contabo_instances

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), it discloses the server-level read-only default, the env flag that unlocks writes, and per-operation destructive flags (shutdown, resetPassword, cancel). This is meaningful operational context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 purpose and read-only warning are front-loaded, and the operation list is a clean bulleted enumeration with terse, well-formed entries. It is necessarily long for a 16-operation multiplexer, so nothing is really wasted, but the volume is non-trivial.

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 complex oneOf multiplexer with no output schema, the description explains the operation-dispatch model, the read-only gate, destructive flags, and where to find parameter docs. Return-value behavior is never addressed, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the delegation to contabo_reference.

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 100% and each operation branch documents its own parameters, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description only notes that params are validated per operation and defers detail to contabo_reference, which is marginal but appropriate value-add; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('Contabo compute instances (VPS/VDS)') and enumerates all 16 supported operations, so the agent immediately knows this is the instances-management surface. It is clearly distinct from siblings like contabo_firewalls, contabo_snapshots, and contabo_dns.

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?

It gives the key dispatch rule ('Choose exactly one operation; every operation has its own parameter set') and routes parameter discovery to contabo_reference. It flags the read-only server gate (CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1) and marks three operations DESTRUCTIVE, giving clear usage context, though it never states explicit when-not-to-use conditions relative to sibling tools.

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