disable_lb_pool_member

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it documents the two-phase preview/apply protocol, the exact contents of blast_radius, the noop outcome for an already-disabled member, and the specific refusal conditions. For a destructive mutation this is unusually complete disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE] tag and the drain semantics, then the confirm protocol, then refusals and usage. Dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant content. The heavily nested parentheticals slightly reduce scannability, keeping it short of a 5.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers both possible return shapes an agent will encounter (blast_radius payload on preview, "noop" on already-disabled) plus the refusal cases. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by framing confirm as a preview-versus-apply gate and explaining that the preview output must be surfaced to the user before applying. The deprecated confirmed alias is documented in both places, so it adds nothing there.

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?

States a specific verb, resource, and mechanism: "Disable a pool member with graceful drain — existing connections complete, no new traffic." This is unmistakably differentiated from the sibling enable_lb_pool_member and from set_virtual_service_enabled, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (maintenance, rolling deployments), a prerequisite (run list_lb_pool_members first for the server IP), the inverse tool (enable_lb_pool_member), and multiple when-not conditions (already disabled → noop; sole enabled member → refused; ambiguous IP → refused). The confirm workflow guidance — "Do not set confirm=True on your own" — is exactly the kind of decision rule an agent needs.

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