arvan_attach_floating_ip

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), but beyond the verb 'attach', the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits (e.g., replaces existing association, error handling, or idempotency). No added value over the implicit 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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description lacks critical details about return values, success/failure signals, and how parameters interact. Insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters. It doesn't clarify that server_id or port_id may be required, nor explain region or subnet_id 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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and specific resource ('floating IP') with target ('server/port'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like arvan_detach_floating_ip or arvan_create_floating_ip.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., need existing floating IP and server/port) or exclusion cases like when floating IP already attached.

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