ncloud_change_lb_config

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond naming the changed properties; it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., service disruption, cost changes) or constraints (e.g., NETWORK type cannot set idleTimeout).

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 sentence that communicates the core purpose and the two key configurable parameters without any fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not cover return values. However, for a configuration change tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, it provides the essential context. It could be improved by noting type-specific constraints (e.g., idleTimeout cannot be set for NETWORK type).

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described (idleTimeout in seconds, throughputTypeCode string, loadBalancerInstanceNo string). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Change') and the resource ('load balancer instance configuration'), and specifies the two configurable aspects (idle timeout, throughput type). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_load_balancer or change_lb_listener_config, though it does not explicitly call out the differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or contrast with similar tools like set_lb_description or set_lb_subnet.

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