change_load_balancer_algorithm

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: 'new requests' signals that in-flight connections are not rebalanced, and 'Returns an Action' discloses that the call returns an asynchronous action object rather than a completed state.

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?

Two short sentences with the action described first and the return noted second; nothing is wasted. 'Returns an Action' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic about what an Action is, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes the return type, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. It nonetheless omits how to track the returned Action, whether the change applies immediately, and any error or state preconditions 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'id' is documented but the 'type' field has no description beyond its enum values. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, though the enum values (round_robin, least_connections) are largely self-explanatory, keeping this at the baseline rather than below it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Change how a load balancer distributes new requests across targets'), which is more informative than the name alone because it clarifies the algorithm governs request distribution. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling change_load_balancer_type, so an agent could confuse the two.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as change_load_balancer_type or update_load_balancer, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the enum values.

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