assign_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the HTTP POST route and target resource types, but it does not explain preconditions, whether an IP can be reassigned, or what happens if the VIP is already assigned.

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-loads the operation, but the first sentence is nearly repeated by the second. The bracketed endpoint adds useful detail, but the duplication prevents it from being maximally concise.

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?

For a mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks important operational context such as preconditions, response expectations, and behavior when the VIP is already assigned or the resource is unavailable.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including the `resourceType` enum. The description adds a small amount of meaning by clarifying that resourceId is the machine id, but otherwise it does not go meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: assigning a VIP to a VPS/VDS/Bare Metal resource. It also exposes the endpoint path, making the operation concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling `unassign_ip` alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance beyond restating the operation. It does not mention prerequisites, duplicate-assignment behavior, or when to use `unassign_ip` instead. The only contextual hint is that assignment is done using the machine id.

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