hcloud_load_balancer_disable_public_interface_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by explaining what actually changes (loss of internet reachability via public IPs) and enumerating the two 422 failure modes, which is the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.

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 effect statement is front-loaded and the error table is genuinely useful. Minor waste: the title sentence is immediately repeated as the first body 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?

For a mutating action with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the failure modes, and (via schema) the polling flag. It does not mention that this is an async action returning an action object, a small gap but not a blocking one.

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 100%, documenting both the required 'id' and the 'wait' polling flag, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not value-adding.

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 (disable the public interface of a Load Balancer) plus the observable effect: the LB is no longer reachable from the internet via its public IPs. It does not explicitly name the enable_public_interface sibling as its inverse, but the action pairing is clear from the name and description.

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 'use this when...' guidance or reference to the enable sibling. However, the operation-specific error table implicitly conveys preconditions (LB must be attached to a network and must not have targets using the public IP), which the agent can use to judge applicability.

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