create_floating_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 states 'create' implies a mutation, but fails to describe what a floating IP is, whether it incurs costs, requires permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise with a single three-word sentence, front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, but as per scoring rules, conciseness is evaluated separately from completeness.

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 complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no context on what a floating IP is, how to use it, or what to expect, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, meaning all 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to explain what 'type', 'home_location', 'server', 'description', or 'labels' mean or how they affect the creation process.

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 'Create a floating IP' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'floating IP', but lacks any detail about what a floating IP is or what this creation entails, making it vague and minimally informative beyond the obvious.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_primary_ip' or 'assign_floating_ip'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to make an informed choice among sibling tools.

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