Create a primary IP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It valuably discloses that the operation is billed and gated behind confirm=true, but omits permission requirements, reversibility, and any rate/lifecycle behavior. The cost disclosure is meaningful context beyond the schema, but coverage is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 clipped sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. The telegraphic style ('Billed. Requires confirm true.') is efficient, though slightly terse for a money-spending operation.

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?

The description covers the key decision points an agent needs: purpose, cost, the confirm gate, and the two creation modes. With a fully documented schema, the main remaining gap is that no return value is described and there is no output schema, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description only restates location-for-standalone and assign-to-server usage, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a primary IP') and clarifies the two creation modes (assigned vs. standalone). It does not distinguish this from the sibling cloud_create_floating_ip, which an agent may confuse with a primary IP, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The 'Assign to a server, or create standalone with a location' clause implies the two usage paths, and 'Requires confirm true' signals a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit comparison against alternatives like cloud_create_floating_ip or cloud_assign_primary_ip, leaving the choice to inference.

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