Enable Load Balancer Public Interface

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate it's a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description only states the effect (enable public interface) without additional behavioral context such as prerequisites, side effects, or rate limits.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word adds value.

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 simple enable action with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to guide a reasonable agent. It explains the purpose and the result, though it could optionally mention that this affects public IP reachability only.

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 100% with the single parameter 'id' described as 'Load Balancer ID'. The description mentions 'load balancer' which reinforces the parameter's context, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Enable', the resource 'public network interface of a load balancer', and the purpose 'so it can be reached over public IPs'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'hetzner_disable_lb_public_interface' which does the opposite.

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 implies usage when needing a load balancer to be publicly accessible, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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