hcloud_load_balancer_update_service_action

Does 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. The description adds the source_port_already_used error code, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose critical update semantics — whether this is a full replacement of the service config or a partial patch, which matters greatly for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then a compact error table. The 'Update Service' title line merely restates the tool name and adds nothing, but overall the description is tight with little waste.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile and the 422 error is a nice addition. But for a destructive update on a nested service config, the description omits whether unspecified fields are cleared, what permissions are needed, and the wait parameter's effect — leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 only 3 params, so the schema carries most of the weight. The description adds no meaning beyond the error mentioning a source port, leaving the body field's replace-vs-merge semantics undocumented. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage.

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+resource: 'Updates a Load Balancer Service.' It's clear what the tool does, but there's no explicit differentiation from sibling actions like add_service or delete_service — the agent must infer from the name that this modifies an existing service.

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 use this vs add_service or delete_service, no prerequisites, no mention that the service must already exist. The only contextual hint is a single 422 error for source_port_already_used, which doesn't tell the agent when to choose this tool.

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