api_post_v2_tickets_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which communicate that this is a destructive write operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as side effects, required permissions, or irreversibility, so it does not go beyond what annotations already convey.

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, direct sentence that specifies the HTTP method and path, and states the purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the response format, side effects, or any operational context, leaving the agent without essential information to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, as every parameter has a description (albeit minimal, with examples like 'Поле тела (пример: "standard")'). The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics, so the score is at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Создать обращение на выделенный IP' (create a ticket for a dedicated IP), using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'выделенный IP' distinguishes it from the sibling tool api_post_v2_tickets, which is likely for general tickets.

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 implies usage for creating tickets about dedicated IPs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like api_post_v2_tickets. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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