Create a Floating IP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, uniqueness constraints, or side effects), so it barely meets the baseline expectation.

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 description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action and object. Every word is necessary; no extraneous information.

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 the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about return values, prerequisites, and potential restrictions (e.g., rate limits, IP uniqueness). The agent may need to guess the response format.

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 coverage is 100% and the description merely echoes the 'availability_zone' parameter without adding new insight. It does not clarify the effect of is_ddos_guard or explain default behavior beyond the schema, so it adds no significant value.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('floating IP address') with scope ('in the specified availability zone'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_database or create_vpc by naming the unique resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_vpc, create_database). It does not mention prerequisites, fallback strategies, or conditions where this tool should be avoided.

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