reserved_ip_detach

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the action and that it returns a success message; it doesn't note prerequisites (e.g., the IP must currently be attached), idempotency, reversibility, or side effects beyond a mention of resource change notifications.

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?

Approximately four short lines, with the action front-loaded. The Args/Returns structure is scannable; the only minor redundancy is describing 'ctx' in Args when it is not part of the input schema.

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 one-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the description is minimum viable: it gives the action and parameter format. It lacks usage context, preconditions, and behavioral side effects that would make selection and invocation fully safe.

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 input schema is just a bare string with 0% coverage, and this description compensates by naming the parameter and giving IPv4/IPv6 example formats. It also introduces a context argument not in the schema, but the main parameter semantics are clear.

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?

States a specific action ('Detach') on a specific resource ('reserved IP') and the relationship to an instance. This makes the operation clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like attach/delete at a basic level, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus reserved_ip_attach, reserved_ip_delete, or reserved_ip_convert_instance_ip. The reader must infer the appropriate usage from the name alone.

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