Update a Hetzner Cloud Load Balancer's name and labels by ID; overwrites existing labels with the supplied key/value set.
Update a Load Balancer
Updates a Load Balancer. You can update a Load Balancer’s name and a Load Balancer’s labels.
Note: if the Load Balancer object changes during the request, the response will be a “conflict” error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Load Balancer. | |
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations: a concurrent object change causes a 'conflict' error, which signals optimistic concurrency handling. It does not, however, say what the response contains or whether an empty body is a no-op.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and then the allowed fields. Minor redundancy in restating 'Update a Load Balancer' twice, but nothing is padded or 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?
There is no output schema, and the description never states what is returned (presumably the updated Load Balancer) or whether sending an empty body is valid. The conflict note is helpful, but for a mutation tool with a nested body object, the description leaves meaningful gaps.
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 50%, and the description compensates by naming the two updatable fields (name, labels), confirming that the nested body accepts only these. It adds no format, length, or overwrite semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g. label set replacement is only in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Update a Load Balancer') and narrows the scope to name and labels, which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like hcloud_load_balancer_update_service_action and hcloud_load_balancer_change_protection_action. Sibling differentiation is implied by scope rather than stated explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 defines what can be changed but gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (the Load Balancer must already exist and be referenced by id), and never names an alternative tool. The reader must infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.