Добавить доменный маршрут (policy-routing по FQDN)

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the tool creates an object-group and binds it via dns-proxy route, and includes live-capture provenance ('перехват XHR веб-интерфейса'). It does not state behavior on re-running with an existing name, but the schema's uniqueness warning mitigates this.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the core behavior and mechanism, the second provides trustworthy provenance. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the combination of a clear description, full parameter documentation, and annotations covers almost everything needed to call it correctly. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over related route-management siblings.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds limited parameter-level meaning beyond that, mostly reinforcing the domain-list and target-interface concepts. Baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Создаёт'), a precise resource ('object-group fqdn'), and the routing mechanism ('dns-proxy route'), tying it to a target interface. This clearly distinguishes it from generic route tools like add_route or bind_route_to_vpn.

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 and schema provide operational guidance such as checking uniqueness via export_config and using confirm/dryRun, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over sibling tools like add_route or run_route_batch. The FQDN-specific scope is implied rather than stated as a selection criterion.

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