Клонирование сервера

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context that the operation creates a 'полную копию' (full copy) in a 'отдельный VPS' (separate VPS), implying the source server is unaffected. It does not detail async behavior or runtime, but annotations cover the mutation profile adequately.

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 two short sentences: the first defines exactly what the tool does, the second gives use cases. No redundant or filler content; every word contributes value.

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?

With one parameter, minimal schema, and annotations provided, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and that it creates a separate copy. It lacks detail about return values or async behavior, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for server_id with its own description ('ID исходного сервера для клонирования'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's function: 'Создаёт полную копию сервера в отдельный VPS' (creates a full copy of the server in a separate VPS), specifying the exact action (creates a full copy), the resource (server), and the target (separate VPS). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_server or update_server, which have different purposes.

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 second sentence provides explicit use cases: 'миграций, blue-green deploy или тестирования рискованных операций' (migrations, blue-green deploy, or testing risky operations). This clearly indicates when the tool should be used, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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