Добавление IP к балансировщику

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about traffic distribution, but it does not disclose behavior such as whether adding IPs is additive or replaces existing ones, duplicate handling, or ordering. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 exactly two sentences, with the action stated first and the effect in the second. There is no redundant information or filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 add operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the core function and expected consequence. It lacks any mention of error conditions or edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete. A small addition about idempotency or limits could push it to 5.

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%: both 'ips' and 'balancer_id' have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action: 'Добавляет backend IP-адреса к балансировщику' (adds backend IP addresses to the balancer). It names the resource (balancer) and the operation (add IPs), and the second sentence clarifies the effect (traffic distribution). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_server_ip, add_balancer_to_project, and especially remove_balancer_ips.

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 usage when you need to attach backend IPs to a balancer, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as remove_balancer_ips for removal. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so it meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks explicit guidance.

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