e2e_action_reserved_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure for a mutating tool, and it delivers almost none: it does not explain whether detach releases or merely unlinks the IP, what 'live-reserve' actually does (or how it differs from plain reserve), idempotency, or required permissions. It also promises targeting a 'load balancer' while the schema only accepts vm_id, leaving the behavior on that path unclear.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three actions and the resource are stated immediately. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a multi-action mutation tool.

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?

Five parameters (three required), an enum action, no output schema and no annotations mean the description should carry a lot of context, and it does not: it omits what live-reserve returns versus attach, whether location/project_id are required in practice, and any relationship to e2e_list_reserved_ips. The load-balancer mention is unbacked by the 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 enum and each field are already documented in the schema; the description adds no format, default, or conditional meaning beyond that. The one extra it does add – mentioning load balancer as a target – conflicts with the documented parameters rather than clarifying them, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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 names a specific resource (static public IP) and three concrete verbs (attach, detach, live-reserve) with their targets, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like e2e_list_reserved_ips or e2e_attach_volume/e2e_detach_volume, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no indication of when to pick this tool over e2e_list_reserved_ips (which presumably shows what IPs exist) or when each of the three action values is appropriate. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are stated.

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