release_ip

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, but the description adds valuable context: the operation is 'Irreversible' and 'requires confirm=true'. It also clarifies that this is a permanent deletion rather than a simple detach, going beyond the annotation's generic destructive flag. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured sentences with the primary action and the key constraint front-loaded. No superfluous words. The distinction from detaching and the irreversibility warning are both concise and critical.

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 destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, irreversibility, confirm flag, and the 'standalone' scope. It does not mention what happens if the IP is attached (e.g., error or forced detach), but the word 'standalone' suggests it's meant for unattached IPs. Adequate for correct usage.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains that confirm must be true, but does not explain ip_id at all. While ip_id is self-evident from the tool name, the description could have added more (e.g., 'the ID of the standalone IP to release') to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The confirm explanation is partial (doesn't mention it defaults to false and must be explicitly set to true).

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: 'Permanently release (delete) a standalone IP address' and explicitly differentiates from detaching ('not just detach it'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like detach_ip and remove_ip_from_vps. The verb and resource are specific and 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 implies when to use this tool vs. alternatives by contrasting with detaching, and it notes the required confirm=true flag as a usage condition. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., 'use detach_ip if you only want to detach'), but the implication is clear enough for an agent selecting between similar operations.

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