update_load_balancer_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about partial-vs-full update semantics, which fields are mutable, or what happens to omitted settings — the key behavioral question for a partial-update mutation with 7 parameters.

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?

A single short sentence with the identifying constraint front-loaded in parentheses; no wasted wording. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but structurally sound.

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 two required identifiers, five optional fields, nested objects, no output schema, and thin schema descriptions, the definition should at minimum say which fields can be changed and whether omitted fields are preserved. None of that is present, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer intent from the schema.

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 description coverage is only 29%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only clarifies that listen_port identifies the target service — information the schema already gives ("Listen port of the service to update"). The nested http, health_check, protocol, destination_port, and proxyprotocol parameters receive no explanation of meaning or interaction anywhere.

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 and resource ("Update a load balancer service"), which cleanly separates it from the add_/delete_load_balancer_service siblings by verb alone. It does not explicitly contrast with update_load_balancer (the parent object), so an agent must infer the service-vs-load-balancer scope.

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 statement of when to use this versus add_load_balancer_service or delete_load_balancer_service, nor any precondition such as the service already existing. The only guidance is the parenthetical that listen_port identifies the service, which hints at targeting but not at when the tool is appropriate.

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