Assign Floating IP

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as reversibility, side effects, or state requirements, so it does not exceed what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence). While it conveys the core purpose, it lacks useful structure such as a second sentence on prerequisites or outcome. It could be more informative without being verbose.

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 simple tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description is barely adequate. It misses details like return value, success/failure states, or elaboration on the location constraint. The location note is valuable but incomplete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names; 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 ('Assign'), the resource ('floating IP'), and the target ('server') with the important constraint ('in the same location'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'hetzner_unassign_floating_ip' and other floating IP operations.

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 usage context with the location constraint but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'hetzner_change_floating_ip_protection'). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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