hcloud_load_balancer_add_target_action

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 mutation profile is known. The error table adds real value by enumerating the constraint states that cause failure (ip_not_owned, load_balancer_not_attached_to_network, target_already_defined). However, it does not explain the returned action object, the effect of the wait flag, or whether re-adding a removed target behaves differently.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, which is good. The nine-row error table dominates the description and is largely reference material that could be deferred to documentation; it earns its place only partially.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what the call returns (an action object) and how the wait parameter changes behavior. It covers failure modes well but leaves the success path and the relationship between target types (server/label_selector/ip) unexplained.

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 description coverage is 67%, which is moderate, and the schema itself documents id, body, and wait thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning directly, though the error codes (ip_not_in_vswitch_subnet, ip_not_assigned_to_server) implicitly reinforce the semantics of the ip and server target fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Adds a target to a Load Balancer." An agent can tell what it does immediately. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling hcloud_load_balancer_remove_target_action or hcloud_load_balancer_add_service_action, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_target or add_service. The 422 error table implies preconditions (LB attached to network, public interface enabled, server on same network), but these are failure modes rather than usage instructions.

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