reserve_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it spends money billed monthly, requires a specific scope, the confirm flag acts as a safety mechanism, and the optional serverId triggers an attach. It also notes irreversibility implied by the confirm requirement. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 concise at three sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and cost, then details optional behavior, and ends with confirmation instructions and management pointers. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, cost, prerequisites, optional attach, confirmation semantics, and post-creation management. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying confirm's role in cost approval and serverId's purpose for immediate attachment. This provides richer semantic context than the schema alone.

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 'Reserve a new static public IP (EUR 2/mo)', specifying the action (reserve), resource (static public IP), and cost. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming attach_reserved_ip, detach_reserved_ip, and release_reserved_ip for management after creation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: requires scope services:write, option to attach immediately via serverId, and mandatory confirm=true to execute. It excludes usage by stating confirm must only be true after user approval, and points to sibling tools for ongoing management.

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