Create Primary IP

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description aligns with them without contradiction. However, it adds little behavioral detail beyond 'new' creation, such as billing implications, the create-and-assign behavior enabled by assignee_id, or the assignee_type default transition.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the core action and the most relevant parameter categories.

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 7-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description is somewhat thin on its own, but the schema carries most of the parameter detail. Missing context includes the create-and-assign option via assignee_id and the future default change for assignee_type, both of which are only present in the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. It mentions type, location, and assignee_type, but these are already described in the schema; it adds no significant meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('a new primary IP'), while noting the key distinguishing parameters (type, optional location, optional assignee type). This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like hetzner_create_floating_ip or hetzner_update_primary_ip.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assign_primary_IP or update_primary_IP. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage solely from the word 'Create' and the tool name.

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