hcloud_get_primary_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 non-obvious lifecycle context — that the endpoint is deprecated with a changelog link — which is real behavioral information an agent can't get from the schema. It does not mention the polling behavior of `wait`, but that is documented in 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 paragraphs with the deprecation front-loaded, so a reader sees the critical warning before the semantics. Minor waste from the markdown anchor fragments ('#tag/actions'), but overall tight.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers purpose, return scope, and deprecation status. What's missing is the actionable replacement path for a deprecated endpoint, which is the single most important thing an agent needs after learning it's deprecated.

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 all three parameters (id, action_id, wait) including the polling flag are already documented with constraints. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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 Primary IP') and clarifies it returns a single Action scoped to a Primary IP. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-duplicate siblings hcloud_get_primary_ips_actions_id and hcloud_list_primary_ip_actions, so the reader must infer the difference.

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 deprecation banner is a genuine usage signal ('do not build on this'), but the description never names the replacement endpoint or says when to prefer hcloud_get_action / hcloud_list_primary_ip_actions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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