reserved_ip_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (delete) but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. The note about detachment is useful but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like whether the operation is deterministic or if there are any consequences for attached resources.

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 succinct, with the key action, parameter explanation, and a critical note about detachment. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured, though some parts could be more concise.

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 gives the essential information: what it does, what parameter to provide, and a prerequisite, as well as the return type (success message). Given that it's a simple delete operation with one parameter, and the existence of an output schema, it is adequately complete, though it doesn't mention error scenarios or edge cases.

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 description explains the parameter 'reserved_ip' with examples ('192.168.1.1' or '2001:db8::1'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's simple string type. However, the schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not provide exhaustive details, but the single parameter is well-documented with examples.

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 'Delete a reserved IP' with the resource specified (reserved_ip) and the action (delete). It is distinct from sibling tools like reserved_ip_attach, reserved_ip_detach, etc., which have different verbs. The example clarifies the format of the IP address.

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 includes a note: 'The IP must be detached from any instance before deletion.' This provides a prerequisite and implies when it's appropriate to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling set makes the purpose clear.

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