Delete a primary IP

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is destructive, that it is free, and that confirm=true is mandatory. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether deletion is irreversible, which a mutation tool would ideally state.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost/safety, then precondition. No filler and every clause conveys distinct 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone; it covers destructive intent, cost, the confirm flag, and the unassign prerequisite, which is nearly everything needed for a simple delete. Only auth/permission and post-deletion state are absent.

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 only 50% — 'id' is documented in the schema but 'confirm' is not — and the description compensates by stating 'requires confirm true', which explains both the parameter's meaning and its required value. That closes the coverage gap for the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Delete a primary IP'), which is unambiguous against list/create siblings. It does not explicitly name cloud_unassign_primary_ip as the alternative, though the phrase 'must be unassigned first' implicitly separates the two.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for calling: the IP must be unassigned before deletion, which is the key when-to-use rule for this tool. It does not spell out fallback alternatives or error behavior, so it stops just short of the top tier.

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