lb_create_forwarding_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create' indicating a mutation, but does not mention whether the forwarding rule must be attached to a specific load balancer, whether it overwrites existing rules, or any prerequisites like the load balancer existing. It also omits possible side effects such as validation failures or network implications.

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 concise for a multi-parameter tool, using a docstring format that front-loads the purpose and lists parameters clearly. Each line is functional, though the inclusion of 'ctx' (a technical internal detail) may add noise for the agent and could be omitted for brevity.

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 5 required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an AI agent. It lacks information about return value details (despite an output schema existing), any validation rules (e.g., protocol matching), and does not describe what happens on success or failure. It also does not mention if the load balancer ID must already exist, which is crucial for correct usage.

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 must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter's meaning, such as documenting 'load_balancer_id' accepts ID or label and providing protocol enum values in parentheses, which is valuable beyond the bare schema types. However, it does not specify allowed port ranges or formats for ports, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool creates a forwarding rule for a load balanceraineand lists key parameters, distinguishing it from siblings like 'lb_get_forwarding_rule' and 'lb_list_forwarding_rules' by the verb 'create'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, merely implying the action.

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 forwarding rules when configuring load balancers, with parameters clearly describing frontend/backend protocols and ports. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'lb_configure_basic_web_lb' or 'lb_delete_forwarding_rule', so the agent must infer the right context from the resource type.

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