detach_ip

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful side-effect context: the IP is kept and not released, and the operation requires explicit confirmation. This gives the agent important operational expectations without contradicting any annotation.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with zero filler. The key behavioral note '(kept, not released)' and the confirmation requirement are both packed in without unnecessary details.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description communicates the operation, the important confirm requirement, and the result semantics. It could be slightly more complete if it addressed behavior when the IP is not currently attached or explicitly pointed to release_ip, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying that confirm must be true, and contextually clarifies that ip_id refers to a standalone IP. However, ip_id is not described with full precision, and the description leans mostly on the parameter name plus tool name.

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 verb ('Detach'), the resource ('a standalone IP address'), and the behavioral scope ('from whatever VPS it's currently attached to'). It also distinguishes the operation from releasing by adding '(kept, not released)', so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 description conveys a clear usage context: use it to detach an attached standalone IP while retaining it. It also gives an implicit exclusion by emphasizing 'kept, not released', though it does not explicitly name release_ip as the alternative or state when not to call the tool.

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