Создание балансировщика

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the list of mandatory parameters and conditional settings (private network, SSL), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as async behavior, potential errors, or what the response contains. It does not contradict the annotations, but relies on them for safety profile while contributing moderate extra context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It lists required parameters compactly in a single sentence, followed by two short conditional clauses. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (28 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: purpose, required fields, and key conditional parameters. It points to list_balancer_presets for preset_id and mentions private network and SSL handling. It does not explain all optional parameters, but the schema fully covers them. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention that custom SSL certificates require additional data fields.

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 all parameters already have descriptions. The description explicitly lists required fields and adds two conditional hints (network_id for private network, certificate_type for SSL), but these are also partly present in the schema (e.g., preset_id schema already mentions list_balancer_presets). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Создаёт новый балансировщик нагрузки' (Creates a new load balancer), providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_balancer, delete_balancer, and get_balancer. The title 'Создание балансировщика' reinforces the purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it lists required fields and gives conditional guidance ('Для приватной сети задай network_id', 'Для SSL — certificate_type'). It also directs the user to list_balancer_presets for obtaining preset_id, which is a useful cross-tool reference. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like update_balancer, hence not a 5.

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