timeweb_bind_floating_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing bindings are replaced), prerequisites (e.g., the floating IP must be unbound), permissions, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 immediately states the action and resource. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is relatively simple, but the description omits any context about side effects, prerequisites, or the optional format parameter's impact. The schema covers parameter details, but the lack of annotations and behavioral context leaves the description somewhat incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, including enums for format and resource_type, so schema coverage is complete (100%). The description does not add any extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Bind') and identifies the resource ('a floating IP') and target ('a server or other resource'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like timeweb_unbind_floating_ip or timeweb_create_floating_ip. While 'other resource' is slightly vague, the schema's resource_type enum (server/balancer) clarifies the intent.

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be used before binding a floating IP or if there are prerequisites like the IP being unbound. It simply states the action without any contextual guidance or exclusions.

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