assign_primary_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical constraint about server power state, which is essential behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, what happens if the server already has a primary IP, or what the expected response format is.

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 communicates the core purpose and critical constraint upfront. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear purpose in helping the agent understand when and how to use this tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational constraint but lacks other important context. It doesn't explain what happens to any existing primary IP, whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a server configuration change, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 specific action ('Assign a Primary IP') and target resource ('to a server'), with the additional constraint 'server must be powered off' that distinguishes it from similar tools like 'assign_floating_ip' or 'unassign_primary_ip'. It uses precise verbs and provides operational context beyond just the tool name.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite condition 'server must be powered off', which provides clear guidance on when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't mention when to use alternatives like 'assign_floating_ip' or 'unassign_primary_ip', nor does it specify any other exclusions or complementary tools.

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