Verda Cloud MCP Server

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 'Create a new startup script' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether the script is immediately active, if it can be edited later, or any rate limits. The return value is mentioned but lacks detail on format or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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 moderate complexity (creation operation), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The output schema existence means return values don't need full explanation, but other gaps remain. This is adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by explaining that 'name' is for the script and 'content' is Bash script content, which clarifies the purpose and format beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover constraints like name uniqueness or content length limits. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is good but not comprehensive.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'startup script', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_instance_startup_script' (read) and 'list_scripts' (list), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from 'create_and_set_default_script'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_and_set_default_script' or 'set_default_script'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating an instance), or exclusions. Usage is implied from the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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