lb_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a new load balancer' without disclosing side effects, permissions, cost implications, or whether creation is asynchronous. It doesn't mention what happens on failure or partial creation. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 lengthy but appropriately structured with an Args list and Returns line. It front-loads the core purpose and then documents each parameter. While some verbosity exists (e.g., repeating default values already in schema), it is organized and efficient for the 18-parameter complexity.

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?

Given the complexity and that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers parameters and return type at a high level. It does not explain prerequisites, regional availability, or interactions with VPC/private networks beyond parameter descriptions. It is minimally complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter semantics. It provides not only types and defaults but also allowed values for balancing_algorithm, detailed nested keys for health_check, forwarding_rules, ssl, firewall_rules, auto_ssl, and sticky_session. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's generic anyOf objects.

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 clearly states 'Create a new load balancer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like lb_create_forwarding_rule and lb_update by focusing on creation of the entire load balancer resource. No ambiguity.

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 usage for creating a load balancer, and siblings like lb_update, lb_get, lb_delete indicate the lifecycle. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., lb_configure_basic_web_lb). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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