timeweb_server_action

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 merely says 'perform an action' and lists action names, but fails to disclose that operations like reinstall, reset_password, or clone can be destructive, irreversible, or require special permissions. It does not describe side effects, latency, or potential impacts on the server or its data.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It lists representative actions and uses 'etc.' to acknowledge additional possibilities, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. Every word contributes to the overall meaning.

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?

The tool can perform potentially destructive actions (reinstall, reset_password, clone), yet the description lacks warnings, prerequisite information, or a note about response behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without critical context for safe and correct invocation. The schema covers parameters well, but the description does not fill the contextual gaps for the tool's risk profile.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including the action enum and descriptions for server_id and format. The description adds only a few examples of action values, which are redundant with the enum. It does not clarify the meaning of specific actions (e.g., difference between stop and hard_shutdown) or the format parameter. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs server actions and lists examples (start, stop, reboot, reinstall, clone). It identifies both the resource (server) and the general operation class, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle server creation, deletion, or retrieval. However, the verb 'perform an action' is somewhat generic and the list is incomplete, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies it is for state-changing operations, but it does not state exclusions (e.g., use timeweb_create_server for creation, timeweb_delete_server for deletion) or provide context such as prerequisites or typical scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the sibling tool names.

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