lb_configure_basic_web_lb

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It states that the tool returns 'Created and configured load balancer information,' which indicates a creation side effect, but it does not mention whether this incurs cost, how long it takes, or whether any pre-existing resources are modified. It also doesn't clarify if standard rules are created automatically, so behavior is only partially transparent.

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 description is highly concise: one opening sentence, an Args list, and a Returns line. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no repetitive or decorative content.

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?

Despite covering purpose, parameters, and return value, the description omits whether this creates a new load balancer or updates an existing one (only 'Created' in Returns hints at it). It also does not explain parameter dependencies, such as needing a domain_zone/domain_sub when enable_ssl is true, or any prerequisites like existing backend instances. For a 7-parameter create/configure operation with no annotations, this leaves important context 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It covers all seven parameters with concise explanations (e.g., 'backend_instances: List of instance IDs to attach' and 'region: Region code (e.g., ewr, lax)'), adding real meaning beyond the raw schema. Some definitions are terse, but they are sufficient for an agent to fill the parameters correctly.

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 opens with 'Configure a basic web load balancer with standard HTTP/HTTPS rules,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from generic lb_create/lb_update by emphasizing 'basic' and 'standard HTTP/HTTPS rules,' though 'configure' could mean either create or update. Overall, the intended purpose is clear.

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 implies a use case—setting up a basic web load balancer with standard rules—but never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives like lb_create or lb_create_forwarding_rule. There are no 'when to use' or 'if you need custom rules' statements, so the agent must infer selection from the words 'basic' and 'standard.' This gives only implied guidance.

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