timeweb_create_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. 'Create a new cloud server with specified configuration' only restates the core mutation; it does not disclose whether provisioning is asynchronous, whether billing is triggered, what the return payload looks like, or what failure modes exist. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It communicates the operation in the fewest words possible, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Despite rich schema coverage, this is a complex create operation with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations. The one-line description omits crucial context such as return values, provisioning time, billing/renewal implications, and how presets interact with custom CPU/RAM/disk settings. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently beyond knowing what the tool does.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, including units, enums, and meanings. The description's phrase 'specified configuration' adds no parameter-level detail. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('cloud server'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like timeweb_create_database and timeweb_create_k8s_cluster by naming the resource, though it adds no additional specificity beyond the tool name.

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?

The description implies this tool should be used for provisioning a new cloud server, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, prerequisites, or the difference between preset and custom configurations. Sibling create tools are distinguished only by resource name, not by the description.

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