cloud_create_floating_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates creation (mutation) but fails to disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., server readiness), or behavioral details like availability. Output schema exists but description adds no behavioral context.

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 very brief (one sentence plus a type list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise, though could incorporate more guidance without being verbose.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to differentiate from cloud_create_primary_ip, or explain creation implications (e.g., costs, quotas). Output schema exists but does not cover context.

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 description must compensate. It only adds meaning to 'type' (enum) and the mutual exclusivity of 'home_location' and 'server'. The other three optional parameters (name, description, labels) are not explained, leaving semantic gaps.

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 verb ('Create'), the resource ('floating IP'), and specifies the type parameter with valid values ('ipv4'|'ipv6'). It also highlights a key constraint (either home_location or server required). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign, update, or delete 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?

The description implies usage for creation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., cloud_assign_floating_ip for assignment). It mentions required parameters but lacks exclusions or context for decision-making.

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