Updates a Hetzner Cloud Primary IP's name, labels, and auto-delete setting; returns a conflict error if the resource changes concurrently.
Update a Primary IP
Update a Primary IP.
If another change is concurrently performed on this Primary IP, a error response with code conflict will be returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Primary IP. | |
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a concurrent modification yields a `conflict` error response. It does not, however, describe which fields are mutable or the overwrite semantics of labels beyond what the schema says.
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?
Short and front-loaded, but the value is diluted by boilerplate anchor markup ('[Primary IP](#tag/primary-ips)') and a grammar slip ('a error response'). The sentence count is appropriate for the content, but roughly half the text is restatement plus a link.
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?
With no output schema, the description could reasonably state what the update returns or what a successful update looks like, and it omits the mutable field set. The conflict behavior note is valuable, but a nested-object mutation tool warrants more disclosure of side effects such as label overwrite.
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 low (50%) and the description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever – it never mentions id, name, labels, or auto_delete. The nested body object carries its own descriptions, but the top-level call semantics are left to the schema alone.
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 ('Update a Primary IP'), which is clear enough to distinguish from read/delete siblings. However, the many sibling update_* tools mean the description does nothing to differentiate the fields or scope of this particular update.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus hcloud_get_primary_ip, hcloud_primary_ip_change_protection_action, hcloud_primary_ip_change_dns_ptr_action, or hcloud_primary_ip_assign_action, which are all plausible alternatives touching the same resource. The only conditional content is a concurrency caveat, not a selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.