Unassign 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 and does disclose the gating precondition, the mandatory confirm flag, and the operational consequence ('the address stops reaching the server'). It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible, whether auth is required, or what happens to the unassigned address.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two blocking conditions. No filler words and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions and the effect of the call. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, post-state of the IP, reversibility) are minor but real.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale beyond the schema's bare 'Must be true.' for confirm — it explains that confirmation is required because connectivity to the server is severed, which helps an agent understand the parameter's intent.

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 ('Unassign a primary IP from its server') that cleanly separates it from cloud_assign_primary_ip, cloud_delete_primary_ip, and cloud_unassign_floating_ip. An agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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 concrete precondition ('The server must be off') and a hard requirement ('Requires confirm true'), which tells the agent when the call can succeed. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. delete vs unassign) or state what to do if the server is running.

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