Update Load Balancer Service

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Update', which implies mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not elaborate on behavioral traits like partial update semantics or the effect of calling with minimal parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Update an existing service on a load balancer.' Every word is necessary and no filler. It is well-structured 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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects for health_check and http) and lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain that it performs a partial update, that required parameters (id, protocol, listen_port, destination_port) must always be provided, or how nested fields are handled. A more detailed description is needed for effective use.

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 for all parameters. The description does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing service on a load balancer'), which precisely matches the tool name. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hetzner_add_lb_service' (add) and 'hetzner_delete_lb_service' (delete).

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 other alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., load balancer must exist), nor does it clarify that this modifies an existing service, not creates one. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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