launch_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., cost, asynchronous launch), required permissions, or any behavioral traits beyond the flex shape hint.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a key tip, making it easily scannable.

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 complexity (11 params, 6 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks context about provisioning behavior, return values, and how it relates to sibling tools like get_instance.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning to two parameters (shape_ocpus, shape_memory_in_gbs) with the flex shapes hint. The remaining 9 parameters, including required ones like compartment_id and subnet_id, remain unexplained.

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 'Launch a compute instance', using a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_instances or terminate_instance. The additional hint about flex shapes reinforces the purpose.

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?

Provides a specific tip on using shape_ocpus/memory for flex shapes, but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., instance_action for managing existing instances) or prerequisites.

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