Assign Primary IP

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

The description only says 'Assign a primary IP to a server.' While annotations exist (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds no behavioral details about side effects, such as replacing an existing primary IP or impact on networking. OpenWorldHint is true but unexplained.

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 sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could benefit from slight expansion, but it is not verbose or wasteful.

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 of the tool (3 required params, no output schema), the minimal description might be sufficient but lacks any context about constraints, typical use cases, or behavior when the IP is already assigned. It feels incomplete for an AI agent.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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') and resource ('primary IP' to a server). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hetzner_assign_floating_ip' (different resource) and 'hetzner_unassign_primary_ip' (opposite action).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It does not mention alternatives or provide context for decision-making.

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