hcloud_delete_primary_ip

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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations: the power-off prerequisite, the auto-unassignment grace period until 1 May 2026, and the specific 422 `must_be_unassigned` failure mode. That is exactly the kind of operational consequence an agent needs before invoking a destructive call.

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 action and the power-off prerequisite are front-loaded in the first two paragraphs, and the error table is genuinely actionable. However, the inline anchor links (#tag/primary-ips, #tag/servers) are noise that adds no information for an agent.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the transition-period behavior, and the specific error to expect. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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% and the single `id` parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing about parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Delete a Primary IP') with an unambiguous scope, and the body clarifies the precondition that distinguishes it from the assign/unassign siblings. It never explicitly names hcloud_primary_ip_unassign_action as the non-destructive alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 concrete usage context: the Server must be powered off (status `off`) for the operation to succeed, and the automatic unassignment behavior with its 1 May 2026 cutoff. It does not explicitly say when to prefer unassign over delete, which leaves the key decision to inference.

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