set_server_weight

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a WRITE operation with risk=medium, reversible via a fetched prior weight, weight 0 stops traffic without state change, and dry_run preview exists. This exceeds the minimal expected disclosure.

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 moderately sized but each sentence carries useful information. The args list is clearly structured, and the note about traefik/caddy, while niche, is still relevant. It could be trimmed slightly, but overall it earns its length.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, side effects, reversibility, and a preview mechanism. The only minor gap is not stating what the tool returns after execution, but this is largely inferable from the operation type.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: backend from list_services, server from list_upstreams, weight range 0-256, dry_run for preview, and target with default behavior. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('an haproxy server's load-balancing weight') with a specific range (0-256). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_server_state, which handles server state rather than weight.

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?

Provides context for when to use: references list_services and list_upstreams as sources for parameters, and notes the dry_run preview option. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the distinction from set_server_state is implied by the different resource being modified.

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