Update Floating IP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further context beyond 'update', such as whether it merges or replaces labels or if partial updates are allowed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single-sentence description is succinct, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not clarify return values (e.g., updated floating IP object). Given the tool's simplicity and full parameter coverage, the description is adequate but leaves out behavioral details like idempotency implications.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (id, name, description, labels). The description merely restates these fields without adding new semantics, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 'Update a floating IP's name, description, or labels' clearly specifies the verb (update) and resource (floating IP), and explicitly lists the modifiable fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hetzner_change_floating_ip_protection and hetzner_change_floating_ip_rdns.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for changing protection or RDNS), nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and fields.

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