reserved_ip_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a reserved IP and returns the created information, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects such as billing implications, requirement of a valid region, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since there are none), but it offers limited insight beyond the obvious mutation.

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 Example sections, and it is not overly long. Every section contributes value, especially the example which makes the call pattern concrete. The only minor redundancy is the inclusion of the 'ctx' parameter in Args, which is not present in the schemahol, adding slight noise but not significant waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 1 required, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: parameters with defaults, an example, and a high-level return description. It doesn't mention error handling or preconditions like billing, but for a straightforward create operation, these are less critical. The extraneous 'ctx' arg is a small gap, but overall the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter details. It does so thoroughly by explaining each schema parameter: region ('region ID where to reserve the IP, e.g., ewr, lax'), ip_type ('v4 for IPv4 or v6 for IPv6, default v4'), and label ('Optional label'). It also includes an example that maps values to parameters, making the semantics unambiguous.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new reserved IP in a specific region.' It names the region requirement and provides an example, making it unmistakable that this tool creates a reserved IP. The name itself aligns with the action, and the description explicitly covers the essential inputs.

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 clearly implies usage when a new reserved IP is needed, and the example illustrates a real scenario. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like reserved_ip_attach or reserved_ip_convert_instance_ip, but the create vs. manage distinction is inherently clear from the action and scope. The context of the operation is sufficient for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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