manage_haproxy_frontend_address

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

Annotation contradiction: the description says 'remove' which is destructive, but annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency. The description also does not disclose the safety gate (confirm must be True for delete) or the apply_immediately behavior, relying entirely on the schema for critical risk information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the core action and resource, effectively trading brevity for immediate clarity.

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?

Although the description is minimal, the schema is exceptionally rich (100% parameter coverage, output schema present, annotations available except for the contradiction). The tool is moderately complex with create/delete actions, but the schema compensates for the brief description. However, the contradiction with destructiveHint undermines overall completeness, preventing a higher score.

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 100% per context signals, and the schema provides detailed descriptions for parameters including enum constraints, dependencies, and defaults (e.g., extaddr, confirm, extaddr_ssl). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Add or remove a bind address from an HAProxy frontend' clearly states the action (add/remove) and the resource (bind address on an HAProxy frontend). It distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_haproxy_frontend_addresses and other manage tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that search_haproxy_frontend_addresses should be used for listing addresses first, nor any prerequisites or conditions for create vs. delete operations. The intended usage is only implied by the action verbs.

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