delete_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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete'), it unassigns from servers if assigned, and it has a prerequisite (server must be off). However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens to associated resources beyond unassignment.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the action and critical constraints. Every word earns its place with no wasted information, making it easy for an agent 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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with prerequisites) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the main action and key constraints but misses details like parameter semantics, error conditions, and return values, which are important for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the tool description provides no information about what 'id' represents (e.g., Primary IP ID, format, or how to obtain it). This leaves the parameter undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Delete a Primary IP') and includes important behavioral details ('unassigns from server if assigned; server must be off'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'unassign_primary_ip' that might only unassign without deletion. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying prerequisites ('server must be off'), but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'unassign_primary_ip' for different scenarios. This gives adequate guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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