hcloud_create_load_balancer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful operation-specific errors, but it does not explain creation behavior, idempotency, required permissions, or what the 'wait' parameter actually changes beyond the schema.

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 first two lines are redundant ('Create a Load Balancer' / 'Creates a Load Balancer'), wasting the only prose sentence on a restatement. The bulk of the description is an error table with no front-loaded explanation of what the tool does or how to call it correctly.

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 complex creation tool with nested targets, services, and health checks, the description provides only API error codes. It omits prerequisites, core creation semantics, how the wait parameter behaves, and any integration guidance with sibling tools like hcloud_load_balancer_add_target_action or hcloud_load_balancer_add_service_action.

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 is deeply documented for nested properties, with descriptions for fields like name, labels, network, targets, services, algorithm, and public_net. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning beyond the schema. At 50% schema description coverage, the schema still carries most of the semantic load, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is essentially a tautology: 'Create a Load Balancer' followed by 'Creates a Load Balancer.' It restates the tool name and title without adding scope, distinguishing it from siblings like hcloud_list_load_balancers or hcloud_update_load_balancer, or clarifying what a load balancer creation entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, network/location constraints), and no exclusions. The operation-specific error table is not usage guidance; it only lists API failure cases.

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