Create a floating IP

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits beyond structured data: that the operation is billed and gated behind confirm=true, which is valuable. However it omits what the IP is attached to by default, reversibility, permissions, and how the created IP is identified.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the cost warning is not buried. It is terse to the point of choppiness but every sentence carries information.

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 6-parameter, cost-incurring mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally sufficient. It covers billing and the confirm gate but says nothing about the remaining parameters, defaults, or what the caller receives back.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents type, server, home_location, and confirm. The description only reinforces the confirm/billing semantics, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own 'Must be true. A floating IP costs money.' 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+resource ('Create a floating IP'), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not differentiate from near-siblings like cloud_create_primary_ip or cloud_assign_floating_ip, but the resource noun alone is specific enough to route correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites beyond confirm, and no routing to alternatives (cloud_assign_floating_ip, cloud_create_primary_ip). The 'confirm true' note is a precondition, not usage guidance.

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