hcloud_get_floating_ip_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that the endpoint is deprecated as of the linked changelog — but says nothing about the returned Action's states, error handling, or the wait/polling behavior exposed by the schema.

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?

Two short sentences plus a deprecation note, no filler. Slight weakness in ordering: leading with the deprecation notice would front-load the most decision-relevant fact rather than burying it after the purpose sentence.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the purpose and deprecation status are adequately conveyed. However, with no output schema, the description does not characterize the Action payload (status, timestamps, error fields) an agent would need to interpret the response.

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 id, action_id, and the wait polling flag are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., what happens when wait is false or how timeouts surface), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get an Action for a Floating IP') and clarifies it returns a single Action scoped to a Floating IP, which separates it from the generic hcloud_get_action and the list variant hcloud_get_floating_ip_actions. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not section or named alternative, but the Deprecated banner with a changelog link implicitly steers the agent away or toward migration. That is useful but indirect guidance rather than a clear usage rule.

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