reserved_ip_convert_instance_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavioral outcome: 'The IP will be converted to a reserved IP and remain attached to the instance.' It also explains the intended use case (retaining IP after instance deletion). However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., IP must be currently assigned) or error conditions, which would be needed for full transparency.

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-organized with sections (Args, Returns, use case) and front-loads the purpose. It is not overly verbose, but the inclusion of 'ctx' in the Args list adds noise and is not a schema parameter, reducing overall conciseness.

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?

The description covers the operation's purpose, parameters, return type, and a practical use case. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., that the IP must be attached to the specified instance) and does not mention potential side effects like billing changes. Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of annotations, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 description must compensate. It provides meaningful descriptions for each schema parameter: ip_address ('The IP address to convert'), instance_id ('The instance ID, label, or hostname...' with examples), and label ('Optional label'). This adds value beyond the schema. However, it includes 'ctx' in the Args list, which is not part of the input schema, potentially confusing an agent into passing an unsupported parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert an existing instance IP to a reserved IP.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like reserved_ip_create (creates a new reserved IP) and reserved_ip_attach (attaches an existing reserved IP), making the purpose 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?

It provides a clear use case: 'This is useful when you want to keep an IP address even after destroying the instance.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., reserved_ip_create for new IPs) or state when not to use it. Slightly below a 5 because exclusions are missing.

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