reserved_ip_attach

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'resource change notifications' via the ctx parameter, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, failure conditions (e.g., if the IP is already attached), or any permissions required. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections. It is concise, with no wasted words. The region constraint is placed at the end as a note, which is acceptable. It could be slightly tighter by removing the ctx description, but it remains efficient.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers parameter formats and a regional prerequisite. However, it omits important contextual details such as whether the reserved IP must be unattached, what happens if it is already attached, and the exact success response format. The output schema is not shown, but the description only says 'Success message' without details. These gaps reduce completeness for a mutation 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?

The schema provides only string types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates excellently by giving concrete examples for both parameters: reserved_ip shows IPv4 and IPv6 formats, and instance_id clarifies it can be an ID, label, or hostname with examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a reserved IP to an instance.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'reserved_ip_detach' by stating the opposite action. The intent 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 provides a critical usage constraint: 'The instance must be in the same region as the reserved IP.' This tells the agent when the operation is valid. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'use reserved_ip_detach to remove') or state when not to use it, such as when the IP is already attached. The region note is useful but the guidance is incomplete.

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