unassign_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 correctly indicates this is a destructive/mutating operation ('Unassign'), but doesn't specify what happens to the Primary IP after unassignment (does it become available for reassignment? is it deleted?), nor does it mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. The power-off requirement is valuable context, but more behavioral details would be helpful.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the core action, target, and critical constraint without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with the essential condition, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential power-off constraint but lacks details about parameter meaning, what happens after unassignment, possible side effects, or return values. Given the complexity of infrastructure management tools, more context would help the agent use this tool correctly and predict outcomes.

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, providing only that 'id' is a required number. The description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (Primary IP ID? Server ID?), what format it expects, or where to obtain it. This leaves a significant semantic gap that the agent must infer from context or trial-and-error.

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 ('Unassign a Primary IP') and the target resource ('from its server'), with the additional constraint 'server must be powered off' that distinguishes it from similar operations. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 tells the agent exactly when this tool can be used. This is a clear usage guideline that prevents the agent from attempting the operation when the server is running, which would likely fail.

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