Assign a floating IP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a mutating operation. It does not say whether the operation is idempotent, whether assigning over an already-assigned IP errors or overwrites, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is a byproduct of under-specification rather than deliberate tightness.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits nearly everything an agent would need: required preconditions, error behavior, and post-assignment state. The schema covers the parameters, but the behavioral surface is unaddressed.

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%: both 'id' (floating IP id) and 'server' (server id) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific verb (assign) and resource (floating IP) plus the target (a server), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling cloud_unassign_floating_ip. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation or scope qualifiers, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus cloud_unassign_floating_ip, cloud_create_floating_ip, or cloud_assign_primary_ip, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., the IP must exist and be unassigned, the server must exist). Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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