Detach a Hetzner Cloud Load Balancer from an existing network by specifying the load balancer ID and network ID; optionally wait for the action to complete.
Detach a Load Balancer from a Network
Detaches a Load Balancer from a network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Load Balancer. | |
| body | Yes | ||
| 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 destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what is lost when the Load Balancer leaves the network, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the first line and the sentence are redundant duplicates of each other and of the tool name, so no sentence earns its place beyond restating the title.
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 destructive mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description should explain the effect of detaching and the async action behavior. Given the annotations cover safety but nothing else is explained, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.
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% and the schema already documents id, body.network, and wait with examples. The description contributes no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or the semantics of the wait flag, so it fails to compensate for the remaining coverage gap.
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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name: "Detach a Load Balancer from a Network" followed by "Detaches a Load Balancer from a network." It conveys the verb and resource but adds no scope or differentiating detail versus siblings like hcloud_load_balancer_attach_to_network_action or hcloud_server_detach_from_network_action, making it a tautology.
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 versus the attach or server-level detach siblings, no preconditions, and no mention of what state the Load Balancer or network must be in. The usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.