Updates the delete-protection setting for a Hetzner Cloud Floating IP, letting you prevent or allow its deletion.
Change Floating IP Protection
Changes the protection settings configured for the Floating IP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Floating IP. | |
| body | Yes | Protection configuration for the Resource. | |
| wait | No | Poll the resulting action until success/error or timeout. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, open-world action. The description adds little beyond that: it does not explain reversibility, permission requirements, or the practical effect of toggling delete protection.
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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted text. Its brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence is largely a restatement of the first.
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 destructive mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out usage context and behavioral details that would help an agent choose it confidently over related tools.
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 parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: changing protection settings for a Floating IP. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this action from related siblings such as update_floating_ip or other protection-changing actions.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It only states the operation, leaving routing decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.