instance_create_ipv4

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden. It does reveal an important behavioral trait: the operation's effect can involve a reboot (reboot parameter defaults to True), and it states what is returned. Yet it stops short of disclosing broader side effects like billing impacts, downtime beyond the reboot, or whether the instance must already exist.

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 compact, with the core purpose front-loaded, and the Args/Returns sections are minimal. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 create tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operating details and return information. However, it omits prerequisites like the instance needing to exist or any context about IPv4 quotas or cost, and without annotations those gaps are not covered elsewhere.

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 parameter explanations are critical. The description provides concrete semantics: instance_id can be an ID, label, or hostname with examples (web-server, db.example.com, UUID), and reboot is described as a boolean with default True. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool does: creates a new IPv4 address for an instance. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like instance_create (creates an instance), instance_list_ipv4, and instance_delete_ipv4 without ambiguity.

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 the tool is used when an existing instance needs a new IPv4 address, and explains the instance_id formats and reboot flag. However, it never explicitly contrasts the tool with alternatives such as instance_list_ipv4, instance_delete_ipv4, or reserved_ip_attach, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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