ncloud_change_lb_config

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat safety. It adds the configurable fields but does not disclose behavioral nuances like the limitation that idleTimeout cannot be set for NETWORK type. That constraint exists in the schema, but the description itself adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key parameters with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward configuration tool.

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 simple tool shape, full schema coverage, and helpful annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the idleTimeout type restriction, but that is covered in the schema. Overall sufficient for an agent to use 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 100%, so all parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description only names the parameters ('idle timeout, throughput type') without adding further semantic detail. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage; no additional value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and names the exact resource ('load balancer instance configuration') plus the configurable fields ('idle timeout, throughput type'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_change_lb_listener_config, which targets listeners rather than the instance-level config.

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 when to use it (changing LB instance-level settings) but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'for listener settings, use change_lb_listener_config.' The context is understandable but lacks explicit differentiation and exclusion guidance.

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