contabo_troubleshooting

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

Beyond the annotations it tags the three cancel operations as [DESTRUCTIVE] and documents the CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1 gate that governs whether write operations execute. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false since it headlines 'READ-ONLY', but it also explicitly discloses that writes exist and can be enabled, so it does not outright contradict the annotation.

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 selection rule, the read-only/write-gate caveat, and the reference pointer are front-loaded before the operation table. The 14-line list is long but each line carries selector information; the only waste is the tautological per-operation glosses ('List check', 'Get check').

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 14-operation polymorphic tool with no output schema, the definition covers operation enumeration, destructive flags, and the write gate, and explicitly delegates field-level detail to contabo_reference. The main remaining gap is that an agent must make a second call to learn required parameters per operation.

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 the schema itself encodes per-operation required fields via oneOf, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only meta-level semantics ('each operation has its own parameter set, validated per operation') and defers all field-level meaning to contabo_reference, which is honest but not additive.

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 the domain (troubleshooting checks, check collections, remedies) and enumerates all 14 concrete operations, so an agent can tell this apart from siblings like contabo_instances or contabo_audits. It never opens with a clean verb+resource statement, but the operation list compensates and the scope is unambiguous.

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 invocation rule ('Choose exactly one operation'; per-operation parameter validation) and routes to contabo_reference for full parameter docs. However, it offers no guidance on when to pick troubleshooting checks over other sibling tools, and no when-not conditions — the per-operation one-liners ('List check', 'Start check') are implied usage at best.

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