set_main_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds the condition about multiple IPs but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds limited value beyond that, hence a 2.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key condition. There is no waste, and the essential information is presented clearly. It earns a 4 for being appropriately concise without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with 4 required parameters, all covered by the schema, and no output schema. The description provides the primary context (multiple IPs) but does not mention the confirmation requirement (confirm must be true) or any potential side effects. Given the low complexity and rich schema, the description is adequate but not thorough, warranting a 3.

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%, so each parameter (id, ip, main, confirm) is already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, except for the context that it applies when multiple IPs exist. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra value, so it stays at 3.

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 action (assign main IP) and the resource (server IP address), and includes a condition ('when there are several addresses') that adds context. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_ptr_record or block_ip, but the action is specific enough. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to the lack of explicit sibling distinction.

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 the use case: when a server has multiple IP addresses. It does not state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. The condition 'when there are several addresses' provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or guidance on alternatives, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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