Change Server Alias IPs

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds context about overriding existing alias IPs, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as prerequisites, permissions, or error scenarios beyond what the annotations and schema 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 a single sentence of 18 words, front-loading the action and using imperative mood. No extraneous information, and it efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

For a simple tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation. However, it does not mention return values or prerequisites (e.g., server must be attached to the network), which would improve completeness.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('Replace'), the resource ('alias IPs that a server has on a private network'), and the effect ('overrides any existing alias IPs for that network'). This distinguishes it from other change tools in the sibling list, which target different resources like protection, DNS, or load balancer settings.

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 (when you need to set the alias IPs for a server on a network, replacing existing ones). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like adding/removing individual IPs, which are not present in sibling tools but could be relevant.

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