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

The description explicitly discloses the financial side effect: it deducts one month's plan cost from the balance and spends real money. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, and is critical for safe agent invocation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and financial impact, then placing the mandatory user-confirmation warning. Every word earns its place and the warning is highly visible.

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 description covers the essential side effect, cost amount, and required user confirmation, which are the key safety elements for this tool. It does not mention the return type or behavior on insufficient balance, but given only two well-documented parameters and existing annotations, the description is close to complete.

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 100%, including tier pricing and name pattern, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds a useful billing context ('1 month cost'), but no additional parameter-level semantics that are not already present.

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 action 'Tạo một server mới' and the resource being created, differentiating it from sibling tools like list_vps and destroy_vps. It also adds the key qualifier that creation deducts one month's cost, which sharpens the purpose beyond the title.

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 an explicit precondition: the agent must confirm the price with the user and get consent before calling the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives, but the when-to-use context is clear and actionable.

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