Move network public IP

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: required scopes (networking:read / networking:manage) with an explicit warning that full/read defaults do not grant networking, backend-enforced ownership/feature/2FA gates, the fact that acceptance is pending and not connectivity, and detailed in_progress/reason_code polling semantics with an explicit rule that in_progress=true is never an error. This is far richer than the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations alone.

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-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then result semantics. Dense but nearly every sentence carries operational weight. Slight redundancy between 'never automatically retry' and 'reuse only the original key and unchanged request' keeps it from a 5.

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-read-only mutation with no output schema, the definition covers auth requirements, ownership/feature gates, approval expectations, async operation polling, reason_code handling, and idempotent recovery. An agent has everything needed to call and follow up 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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description reinforces idempotencyKey use ('reuse only the original key and unchanged request') which the schema also covers, but adds no syntax or value detail for binding_id, private_port_id, or expected_generation beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Move a prepared floating public binding to another owned private port.' Distinguishable from sibling bind_network_public_ip / attach_public_address_to_network by the 'prepared binding' and 'move' framing, and the 'confirm interruption to the old target' clause signals it is a re-targeting operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the bind_* sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear preconditions: 'Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change.' This tells the agent what to do before invoking. It stops short of a 5 because it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one.

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