ips_assign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Assign an IP' and adds 'confirm: Required,' but it does not explain consequences such as whether an existing assignment is overwritten, whether the IP must be free, or what happens on failure. The 'confirm' parameter is mentioned but its role is not actually explained.

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 main action, followed by a compact argument list. It wastes little space, though the misleading 'confirm: Required' note could have been replaced with a more useful clarification.

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 is a mutating operation with no annotations, an output schema, and only 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain prerequisites, side effects, or how confirm affects execution. An agent would not know whether this reassigns an IP already in use or only assigns an unassigned one, making the definition incomplete for safe invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only provides minimal labels: 'ip: Address' is largely tautological, 'username: Destination account' is mildly helpful, and 'confirm: Required' is confusing because the schema marks confirm as optional with a default of false. It does not clarify what value confirm should take or why it is needed.

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 action ('Assign an IP') and the target ('to a reseller/user'), so an agent can tell this is an assignment operation rather than a lookup or removal. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ips_add or ips_remove.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ips_add or ips_remove. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use this when the IP is already allocated to the server but not yet assigned to an account.'

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