hcloud_primary_ip_unassign_action

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the required server state and a table of operation-specific 422 errors (server_not_stopped, server_is_load_balancer_target). This tells the agent exactly why a call would fail before it tries.

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 precondition and error table are front-loaded and useful, but the opening sentence is duplicated in prose and as a markdown link line, and the anchor-link noise adds no information. Minor redundancy only.

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 action tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions and failure modes well. It stops short of saying what the call returns (an Action object, per the `wait` polling parameter), which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 both the Primary IP `id` and the `wait` polling flag are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 ('Unassign a Primary IP from a resource'), which directly contrasts with the sibling hcloud_primary_ip_assign_action. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition that the target Server must be powered off and that a Server needs at least one network interface to be powered on, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives (e.g. poweroff_action) or state what to do when no server is attached.

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