clear_static_nat

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

Annotations exist (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate safety basics. It adds the useful qualifier that only 'stuck' rules are affected and that filtering is by internal IP. However, it does not clarify side effects, whether all such rules are removed at once, or what happens if no stuck rules exist.

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 compact sentence that includes the core action, the resource, the filtering key, and the API path. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter operation with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly adequate. Still, it lacks context about when the operation is needed, what 'stuck' means in practice, and what result to expect, so it is only minimally complete.

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%, with both ip and confirm already documented. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond saying the operation targets rules by internal IP. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 states a clear action ('Удалить' / delete) on a specific resource ('застывшие правила статического NAT-проброса по внутреннему IP'). It also includes the API path, which helps identify the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like remove_static_nat or drop_nat, so it misses the top score.

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 this is used for stuck/stale static NAT rules but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over remove_static_nat, drop_nat, or add_static_nat. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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