Change Floating IP Protection

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool enables or disables delete protection, which explains the idempotent nature (toggling) and confirms non-destructive behavior. This goes beyond annotations by specifying the protection type.

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, concise sentence (17 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 boolean toggle with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation. It does not explain return values, but this is not expected given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'delete'). The description does not add any new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, hitting the baseline.

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 verb 'enable or disable', the resource 'delete protection on a floating IP', and the purpose 'to guard against accidental destruction'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hetzner_change_floating_ip_rdns and hetzner_update_floating_ip by specifying the exact aspect being changed.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to toggle delete protection. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and sufficient for decision-making given the sibling context.

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