hcloud_load_balancer_attach_to_network_action

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the three operation-specific 422 failure modes (already attached, IP unavailable, no subnet available), which is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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 heading line is immediately repeated verbatim in the body, wasting the front-loaded position. The error table is dense and useful, but the lead-in should have carried the operation semantics instead of a duplicate sentence.

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?

There is no output schema and the tool performs a mutation, so the description should mention that it returns an action, how to poll it (the wait parameter), or side effects on the LB's existing networking. Only failure modes are covered; the success path and resulting state are left implicit.

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 67% with the nested body properties (ip, network, ip_range) all documented inline, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, auto-assignment behavior, or the wait/polling tradeoff, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not valuable.

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?

A specific verb (Attach) plus resource (Load Balancer) with the destination (Network) named, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as hcloud_load_balancer_detach_from_network_action or hcloud_server_attach_to_network_action, and the first line is just the title restated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the network must exist, the LB must not already be attached), and no pointer to the detach counterpart. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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