update_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 states the tool performs an update operation but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing fields not mentioned, or potential side effects (e.g., impact on associated resources). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 phrase that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential information (update action and modifiable fields) without any redundant or verbose language. Every word earns its place.

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 (mutation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, fully explain parameters, or provide usage context. For a tool that modifies resources, more information about effects, requirements, and output would be necessary for adequate understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'name, labels' which correspond to two of the three parameters, but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter (required) or provide any semantic details about format, constraints, or usage. The description adds minimal value beyond naming some parameters without context.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Primary IP') along with the specific fields that can be modified ('name, labels'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_primary_ip' and 'delete_primary_ip' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a Primary IP is or its role in the system.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Primary IP), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'assign_primary_ip' or 'unassign_primary_ip'. Usage is implied through the verb 'Update' but lacks contextual direction.

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