hcloud_primary_ip_change_protection_action

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

The description contributes real behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the auto_delete prerequisite for enabling deletion protection — something no annotation conveys. It omits other relevant traits: whether enabling protection vs. disabling is destructive, idempotency, and what the `wait` polling behavior means for the caller. The destructiveHint=true annotation combined with the anti-destructive framing of 'protection' is not reconciled, though it is not directly contradicted.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the one non-obvious constraint. Minimal waste; a slightly tighter phrasing would earn a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one key precondition but leaves the agent without the outcome shape (returns an Action polled by `wait`), error conditions, or confirmation of how to re-read state afterward. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents `id`, `body.delete`, and `wait`. The description adds only the auto_delete precondition tied to `body.delete`, but does not clarify the boolean's semantics (true = protection on) or the nested body structure beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Changes the protection configuration of a Primary IP'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling action tools like hcloud_primary_ip_change_dns_ptr_action or hcloud_primary_ip_unassign_action. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the single stated precondition ('deletion protection can only be enabled if its `auto_delete` property is set to `false`'), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no direction to alternative tools (e.g. hcloud_update_primary_ip) for related changes.

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