lb_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the operation updates an existing load balancer and mentions that ctx emits resource change notifications, but it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are reset or preserved, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutating tool with 13 optional parameters.

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 opens with a one-line purpose, then uses a clean Args/Returns structure. It is reasonably sized for 13 parameters. Some lines are redundant with the parameter names, and the 'ctx' argument is documented but absent from the input schema, which slightly undermines the structure.

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?

This is a complex update operation with 13 parameters, many of them nested or optional, yet the description does not explain update semantics such as merge versus replace, whether omitted fields are cleared, or which combinations are valid. It also omits permissions and side effects. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the missing behavioral and applicability context leaves the agent under-informed.

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 provides a line for every parameter, and some add real meaning: timeout is 'in seconds,' instances are 'IDs to attach,' and several flags say 'Enable/disable.' However, many lines are tautological (e.g., 'balancing_algorithm: Balancing algorithm,' 'forwarding_rules: Updated forwarding rules,' 'health_check: Updated health check configuration'), and complex objects like ssl and sticky_session lack structural detail. Partial compensation earns a 3.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing load balancer.' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation or deletion tools like lb_create and lb_delete. It does not explicitly differentiate from lb_configure_basic_web_lb, but the general update intent 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lb_create, lb_delete, or lb_configure_basic_web_lb. The phrase 'existing load balancer' only weakly implies that the load balancer must already exist. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or what scenarios call for a different tool.

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