lb_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a load balancer' and mentions a return status, but does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, whether it requires special permissions, or whether it affects attached resources. The mention of 'ctx' as an argument is also unexplained and not present in the schema, adding confusion.

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 and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though including 'ctx' (which is not in the schema) adds slight noise. The format is easy to parse.

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?

For a simple delete operation, the description covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return. However, it omits critical context such as prerequisites (e.g., the load balancer must exist), side effects (e.g., permanent deletion), and behavior on failure. The presence of an output schema is noted but not detailed, and the 'ctx' parameter is left unexplained. This leaves gaps for an agent deciding to call the 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?

The schema provides only the type 'string' with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that load_balancer_id can be a label or UUID and gives examples, which adds meaningful context. However, it also lists 'ctx' as an argument, which is not in the schema, potentially misleading an agent about required inputs.

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 states 'Delete a load balancer' clearly, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lb_delete_ssl (which deletes SSL) and lb_get/lb_create/lb_update, so an agent can easily understand its unique purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for permanently removing a load balancer, nor does it contrast with lb_delete_ssl or other related tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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