hcloud_create_primary_ip

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-destructive, open-world mutation) the description discloses operation-specific failure modes — server_not_stopped, server_has_ipv4, server_has_ipv6 — and the same-Location assignment constraint, which an agent could not infer from structured fields. It doesn't cover return shape or the wait/polling behavior, so not a 5.

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 core content is front-loaded and the error table is genuinely useful, but the prose is bloated by repeated '[Primary IP](#tag/primary-ips)' link markup that adds no information for an agent. Several sentences restate the same location-required rule already present in the schema.

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 mutating create with a nested request body, no output schema, and two top-level params, the description covers the creation rules, assignment prerequisites, and error conditions an agent needs. Missing only return-value expectation and the meaning of the `wait` polling flag.

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 50%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already says about `location` and `assignee_id`/`assignee_type` (ID-or-name, omit when unassigned). It adds no new semantics for `name`, `labels`, `auto_delete`, or the `wait` flag, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Primary IP') and immediately qualifies the creation semantics (assigned vs unassigned). It is distinguishable from the many other create_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with hcloud_create_floating_ip, the closest alternative.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: an IP can be assigned via assignee_id/assignee_type, otherwise `location` is required, and a later assignment is restricted to the same Location. It omits explicit when-not-to-use/alternative routing (e.g. floating IP), so it falls short of a 5.

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