Update Primary IP

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

Annotations already declare the tool as not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotation traits; it focuses on the fields rather than side effects or prerequisites.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and modifiable fields. No unnecessary words or 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 update tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and fields. It lacks mention of return values or permissions, but annotations compensate for safety traits.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions. The description lists the same fields (name, auto_delete, labels) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. It essentially restates existing information.

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 'Update' and the resource 'primary IP', and lists the specific modifiable fields (name, auto_delete, labels). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools and change tools.

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 usage for updating name, auto_delete, or labels, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative change tools (e.g., hetzner_change_primary_ip_protection). No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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