attach_ip

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Requires confirm=true' and the same-region limitation, which go beyond the schema. It does not describe effects like what happens if the IP is already attached, but with annotations present the description adds moderate value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the operational constraint and confirmation requirement stated clearly. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 core operation, the region restriction, and the confirmation flag, which is enough for a minimal understanding. However, with no output schema and sparse annotations, it omits what a successful attachment returns, how IDs are obtained, and what prerequisites or failure cases apply. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explicitly clarifies 'confirm=true'. It does not explain the meaning or format of ip_id and vps_id beyond the schema's weak 'Ip Id' and 'Vps Id' titles. While inferable from context, this is insufficient semantic enrichment for a low-coverage schema.

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 clearly states the action 'attach' and the resource 'standalone IP address to a VPS', with the important 'same region' constraint. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like add_ip_to_vps or detach_ip, but the specific standalone-IP framing makes the purpose understandable.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_ip_to_vps, detach_ip, or list_attachable_ips_for_vps. The 'same region' constraint and confirm requirement are usage preconditions, not selection guidance, so an agent gets no help choosing among related IP tools.

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