Change Load Balancer Algorithm

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent, non-destructive, and not read-only. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation hints, such as whether changing the algorithm affects existing connections or requires a specific load balancer 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of good annotations and schema coverage, the minimal description is adequate but lacks context about effects (e.g., impact on traffic) or prerequisites (e.g., load balancer status).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('id' and 'type') well-documented. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the purpose.

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 the action ('Change') and the resource ('balancing algorithm of a load balancer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hetzner_change_lb_type' which modifies a different property (load balancer type).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'hetzner_update_load_balancer' or 'hetzner_change_lb_type'). The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for using this tool.

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