create_load_balancer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool spends money (two separate hourly meters), requires confirm for cost approval, and describes the default for healthCheck. Lacks details on irreversibility beyond the confirm flag and error behavior.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, from the operation summary to billing implications to parameter details.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, billing, scope, parameters, and sibling tools. Minor gap: does not describe the return value on success.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds significant extra meaning: confirm must only be true after user approval, port is both listener and member port, healthCheck defaults to true server-side, memberServerIds are Nova server ids, and name character range.

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 it creates an L4 TCP load balancer with VIP, listener, pool, and floating IP. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_load_balancer_member and remove_load_balancer_member by noting management afterward.

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?

Explicitly mentions required scope (services:write) and tenancy, and warns about spending money with the need for confirm:true after user approval. Does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, but the context of creation vs. management is clear.

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