assign_floating_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention if this requires specific permissions, whether the assignment is reversible (though 'unassign_floating_ip' exists as a sibling), what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place by specifying the key elements (assign, floating IP, server), making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'floating IP' and 'server' but doesn't explain what 'id' and 'server' parameters represent (e.g., that 'id' likely refers to the floating IP identifier and 'server' to the server identifier). No format, constraints, or examples are provided, leaving parameters ambiguous despite the low coverage.

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 ('assign') and target resources ('floating IP to a server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_floating_ip' (creation) and 'unassign_floating_ip' (removal), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being assigned to what.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing floating IP and server), exclusions, or related tools like 'assign_primary_ip' for similar operations. Usage is implied only by the action name, with no explicit context for selection.

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