contabo_vips

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the server is READ-ONLY by default and that write operations are rejected until CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1 — critical operational context an agent would otherwise miss. It also flags unassign as [DESTRUCTIVE] and notes per-operation parameter validation. It stops short of saying what happens to the VIP after unassign (detached vs released).

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?

Front-loads the two things that matter most (one-operation rule, read-only gating) before the bulleted operation list, and every sentence carries information. Minor waste and a copy error in the unassign description ('Unassign a VIP to a VPS' instead of 'from') keep it from a 5.

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 oneOf multiplexed tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what the tool is, how to select an operation, the destructive/default-read-only constraints, and where to find parameter details. Return-value behavior is not described, but that is acceptable given the absent output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every field, and the description adds no syntax or format meaning for any parameter. It does explicitly offload parameter documentation to contabo_reference, which is helpful routing but not parameter semantics itself. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (Contabo virtual IPs / VIPs) and enumerates the four concrete operations (list, get, assign, unassign) with a one-line gloss of each. An agent knows exactly what surface this tool covers. It loses a point because the opening line mostly restates the tool name and the tool is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like contabo_instances or contabo_firewalls.

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 states the structural rule for use ('Choose exactly one operation') and routes the agent to contabo_reference for per-operation parameter documentation, which is genuinely useful for a multiplexed tool. What's missing is guidance on when a caller would want assign vs get vs list, though the operation names are largely self-explanatory.

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