set_main_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the multiple-address precondition, but does not say what side effects a primary-IP change has (service interruption, reverse DNS implications) or that confirm must be true — that requirement lives only in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the effect stated first and the precondition second. The parenthetical API identifier is mildly redundant but useful for traceability, and there is no filler.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents all four required parameters, so the description only needs to add situational context. It covers the precondition but omits any note on the impact of changing the primary address or the confirm-required behavior, leaving a modest gap for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so id, ip, main and confirm are all documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no disambiguation between the two similar parameters (ip vs main), which is the one place extra prose would have helped.

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 and resource ("Set the primary IP address of the server") and even maps it to the underlying API call (ip/set_main). An agent can tell this apart from other IP-related siblings like get_ip_info or update_ptr_record, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause "when there are multiple addresses" gives an implicit precondition for use, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., how to first inspect addresses via get_ip_info) and states no exclusions or prerequisites such as needing the server in a known state.

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