Attach public address to server

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that movement affects the previous target, specifies the networking:read vs networking:manage permission split (and that full/read defaults do not grant networking), notes backend enforcement of ownership/feature/2FA locks, and fully documents the async model (accepted = pending, in_progress/reason_kind/reason_code semantics, no automatic retry). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, and nearly every clause carries behavioral information. It is dense and somewhat run-on in the polling/retry section, with a few fragments ('Preserve reason_code.'), but there is little pure filler.

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, non-idempotent mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers permissions, pre-checks, side effects on the previous target, and the full async/error handling contract. An agent has everything needed to invoke and monitor it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and both UUID parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect meaning (that address_id is an owned paid address and private_port_id belongs to the target server) but no formatting or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a precise verb pair (attach or move), the exact resource (an owned paid public address), and the target (an eligible zero-public-IP server's private port). This distinguishes it immediately from siblings like attach_public_address_to_network and attach_private_network_port without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives strong context: pre-read server_target_enabled and candidate state, obtain approval for the exact change, and the eligibility constraint (zero-public-IP server). It stops short of explicitly naming alternative sibling tools for non-server targets, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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