Create Primary IP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to reiterate the write nature. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'create,' such as whether duplicate names cause errors, the need for datacenter availability, or that creation might block. The description is too bare to fully inform the agent.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action. While it could benefit from slightly more detail, it remains concise and to the point.

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 create tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain the return value (the created IP object) or confirm that the tool is not idempotent (despite openWorldHint=true). The description is complete enough for a basic agent but lacks depth.

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% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the schema already explains each field. The description mentions only 'type' and 'assignee type,' which adds no new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new primary IP with the specified type and optional assignee type.' This specifies a concrete verb (Create) and resource (primary IP), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hetzner_assign_primary_ip (which assigns an existing IP) or hetzner_create_floating_ip (different resource type).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as hetzner_create_floating_ip or hetzner_assign_primary_ip. Given the large number of sibling tools, the agent would benefit from hints about prerequisites or context, but none are present.

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