flexible_ip_attach_flexible_ip

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, or side effects. For example, it does not state what happens if the IP is already attached or if the server is invalid. The description is too brief to inform the agent of important behavioral nuances.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 that this is an attachment operation with required parameters and an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, prerequisites, or potential errors. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Attach' and the resources: 'flexible IP' and 'Elastic Metal server'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like flexible_ip_detach_flexible_ip, flexible_ip_create_flexible_ip, etc., as it focuses on attaching an existing IP to a server.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the IP must not already be attached to another server, or the server must exist) or when not to use it. Sibling tools for detaching, getting, or listing IPs are present but no differentiation is given.

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