e2e_create_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about the behavior an agent needs: whether provisioning is asynchronous, how long it takes, cost/billing implications (hourly vs the is_committed option), or what happens on partial failure with number_of_instances > 1. A single 'launch and provision' clause is far too thin for a 14-parameter mutation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficiently sized, but the minimalism is also under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 resource-provisioning tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it omits provisioning semantics, cost model, required prior lookups (plans, OS images), and any hint of the returned node identity. Nothing beyond the tool's name is clarified.

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 coverage is 100%, so every one of the 14 parameters is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning — the only signal is 'compute node or GPU instance', which loosely maps to the plan parameter. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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 verb ('launch and provision') and resource ('a new compute node or GPU instance'), which cleanly separates it from sibling readers (e2e_list_nodes, e2e_get_node) and other create_* tools for volumes, buckets and databases. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any named sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no prerequisites, no mention of how it differs from e2e_node_action or e2e_delete_node, and no note that the plan/image must be resolved first (that hint lives only in the schema's parameter descriptions). The reader is left to infer everything about invocation context.

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