Setup purchased virtual machine

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

The description aligns with the annotations: it is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). It adds useful context that the VM must be newly purchased and in 'initial' state, but it does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, what side effects it has, or what response the caller should expect.

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 short and front-loaded with the key lifecycle qualifier ('newly purchased', 'initial' state). The second sentence is slightly redundant—'use this endpoint' repeats the first sentence—but it is still concise and scannable.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters, nested input, and no output schema, yet the description gives no information about return values, async behavior, polling needs, or prerequisites beyond 'newly purchased' and 'initial' state. The annotations do not fill these gaps, so an agent would still be unsure what to expect after calling it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter's basic meaning. The description adds no parameter-level guidance about relationships or constraints (e.g., password vs. public_key, or required template/data_center combination), so it stays at the baseline.

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 identifies the operation as setting up/initializing a newly purchased VPS instance, which is distinct from purchasing or starting a VM. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool such as VPS_purchaseNewVirtualMachineV1.

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?

It explicitly says to use this endpoint to configure and initialize purchased VPS instances, which gives clear context. However, it does not state when not to use it, what conditions must be met (beyond 'initial' state), or how it differs from related VPS lifecycle tools.

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