liara_set_fixed_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the return value ('returns IP when enabling'), it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require restart, potential downtime, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies network configuration, this lack of transparency is significant.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and key behavioral detail (return value). Every word earns its place with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 configuration mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'static IP' means in this context, whether disabling releases the IP, if there are costs or limits, or what format the returned IP has. The single behavioral detail about return values doesn't compensate for the missing context about this potentially impactful operation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (appName and enabled). The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'enabling' returns an IP address, which provides context about the enabled=true case. However, it doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Enable or disable static IP') and resource ('for an app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing specifically on IP configuration rather than general app management or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other IP-related tools (none appear in the sibling list).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must exist), consequences of enabling/disabling, or what happens if static IP is already enabled/disabled. With many sibling tools for app management, there's no context about when IP configuration is appropriate versus other app modifications.

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