attach_reserved_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permissions and the source of IDs, but lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether the attachment causes downtime, replaces existing IP, or is immediate). No output schema means the return value is unknown.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, permissions, parameter sources. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple attach operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, and parameter sourcing. It could mention behavioral side effects (e.g., network impact) but is adequate overall.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema descriptions for both parameters, adding only the ownership constraint for serverId. It does not provide new semantic insight 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 clearly states the action: 'Attach a reserved (static) public IP to one of your cloud VMs.' The verb 'attach' and the specific resource and target distinguish it from sibling tools like detach_reserved_ip, reserve_ip, and release_reserved_ip.

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 specifies the required scope ('services:write') and notes 'Plain write — not gated,' indicating no additional gates. It also clarifies where the parameters come from (list_reserved_ips and owned VM). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the context is clear.

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