Создание Floating IP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the creation effect is implied. The description adds the availability zone constraint but does not disclose other potential behaviors like network requirements, cost, or that the created IP is unbound until a separate bind operation. This is acceptable but lacks extra 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 a single, direct sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool and front-loads the core action.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. It does not describe the return value, which could be useful since no output schema exists, but for a basic create operation this is a minor gap. Overall, it is contextually complete enough.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (is_ddos_guard and availability_zone) with 100% coverage. The tool description mentions only the availability zone and adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding additional 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 'Creates a new floating IP address in the specified availability zone' clearly states the action (create) and resource (floating IP), distinguishing it from siblings like update_floating_ip, delete_floating_ip, or bind_floating_ip. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing server or network) or conditions under which creating a floating IP is appropriate. The sibling tool bind_floating_ip is not referenced, so the agent receives no differentiation.

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