create_primary_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the server must be off for assignment, which is a critical behavioral constraint, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on creation (e.g., is it immediately usable?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core action and key constraints in two concise sentences. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses details on return values, error cases, and full parameter meanings. For a tool that creates resources with multiple options, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 low (33%), with only 'datacenter' and 'assignee_id' having descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of 'datacenter' and 'assignee_id,' but doesn't clarify other parameters like 'name,' 'type,' 'auto_delete,' or 'labels.' It partially compensates but leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 ('Create a Primary IP') and specifies it's 'datacenter-scoped,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_floating_ip' or 'assign_primary_ip.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_primary_ip' in terms of creation vs. modification, leaving some ambiguity.

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 context on when to use certain parameters ('Provide datacenter OR assignee_id') and includes a prerequisite ('server must be off to assign'), which helps guide usage. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'assign_primary_ip' for reassignment or when to choose this over other IP-related tools, but the guidance is clear for its own context.

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