Change the algorithm that routes new requests to a load balancer's targets, switching between round-robin and least-connections.
Change Algorithm
Change the algorithm that determines to which target new requests are sent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Load Balancer. | |
| body | Yes | Algorithm of the Load Balancer. | |
| wait | No | Poll the resulting action until success/error or timeout. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds a small but real behavioral note — that only the routing of *new* requests is affected, implying existing connections are untouched. It does not mention that the change returns an async action, nor how the `wait` polling behaves.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. It could go further in the same space (e.g., naming the two algorithm options) but nothing is wasted.
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?
Adequate for a simple one-field mutation whose schema is fully documented, but it omits the asynchronous action return and the meaning of the default `wait: true` polling — the main thing an agent needs to know before invoking this on a live load balancer.
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 100%: the `body.type` enum (round_robin, least_connections), the `id`, and the `wait` polling flag are all documented in-schema. The description adds nothing about parameter values or formats, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Change the algorithm') and clarifies the effect: it determines which target receives new requests. This distinguishes it from other 'change_*' load balancer siblings (change_type, change_protection, change_dns_ptr) without naming them explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to pick this over alternatives such as hcloud_load_balancer_update_service_action or hcloud_update_load_balancer, nor on prerequisites (existing LB, valid balancing state, no in-flight drain concerns). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.