timeweb_update_server_disk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects. It only states 'resize' without mentioning that size can only increase, potential downtime, or irreversibility. This is a significant gap for a 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 it's a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify the result of the operation, whether the server needs to be stopped, or other behavioral context. The schema covers parameters but not the operational effects.

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 contains descriptions for all four parameters, including the important constraint that size can only increase. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score.

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 ('update') and resource ('server disk') with a parenthetical clarification ('resize'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_server_disk or list_server_disks.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool relative to other disk operations such as create or delete. It doesn't mention prerequisites like server state or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision guidance.

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