add_load_balancer_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirements ('services:write') and notes 'Plain write — not gated,' but omits side effects (e.g., behavior if member already exists) and response format. It provides moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information (action, scope, nature, parameter details) without redundancy. It is concise and efficiently uses words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, and parameter sources but lacks details on success output, error cases, or idempotency. It is adequate for simple operations but not fully complete.

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 100%, providing descriptions for all three parameters. The description largely reiterates the schema, adding only minor context (e.g., 'from list_load_balancers'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, warranting the baseline score.

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 starts with a clear action: 'Add a VM as a member of a load balancer pool.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name itself distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_load_balancer_member' and 'list_load_balancer_members', making purpose unmistakable.

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 states the required scope ('services:write') and parameter constraints (e.g., serverId must be in your project). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling names are self-explanatory. The guidance is clear for correct invocation.

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