Отвязка плавающего IP от сервиса

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'from current service', but it does not describe side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to the IP after unbinding.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, and it conveys the essential purpose effectively.

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 one parameter and no output schema. Annotations cover safety. However, the description is very brief and does not explain the outcome or side effects of unbinding, such as whether the IP remains in the account or what happens to the service. This is sufficient for a basic action but leaves gaps.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (unbind), resource (floating IP), and scope (from current service). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bind_floating_ip and 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 when to use the tool (when you need to unbind an IP), but it does not provide explicit alternatives or state when not to use it. No comparison with bind_floating_ip is given.

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