Update Load Balancer

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. The description adds minimal behavioral context (it updates mutable fields). It does not mention side effects, prerequisite existence of the load balancer, or any behavioral constraints beyond what annotations convey. Acceptable but not enhanced.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and free of superfluous information. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as noting that only these two fields are modifiable.

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 large number of sibling tools (many with 'update' or 'change' in names), the description should clarify how this tool fits into the workflow. It does not mention that other aspects require separate change tools, nor does it describe the return value (no output schema). The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's place among alternatives.

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?

Input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. The description reiterates that the tool updates 'name or labels', which is already evident from parameter names and descriptions. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond summarizing the intent. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3; no extra credit given.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'load balancer', and specifies 'name or labels'. This distinguishes it from other update-like tools such as 'hetzner_change_load_balancer_protection' which focus on other attributes. However, it does not explicitly exclude updating other aspects, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 other changes (e.g., protection, algorithm) require different tools like 'hetzner_change_load_balancer_protection' or 'hetzner_change_lb_type'. The agent receives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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