Удалить проброс порта

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, and the description aligns by saying an existing forwarding rule is removed. It adds little beyond the minimal deletion semantic and does not mention side effects such as the port becoming externally unreachable or how confirm/dryRun affect the operation.

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 with no filler: the verb and object come first. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity leaves room for more operational detail.

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 flat four-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally sufficient when combined with the schema, but the agent is not told how to identify the exact rule safely or which sibling to consult for listing rules. It is adequate, not comprehensive.

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 50%, with dryRun and confirm already documented in the schema. The description does not explain that proto/externalPort together identify the rule to remove, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the field names and enum/range constraints.

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 clear verb ('Удаляет') and resource ('ранее созданное правило port forwarding'), so the core action is unambiguous. It is strongly distinguishable from add_port_forward and list_port_forwards, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for contrast.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus list_port_forwards, add_port_forward, or remove_route. It also does not mention checking for the rule first or using dryRun/confirm as a safe workflow.

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