Создание правила балансировщика

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by detailing exactly what the rule represents—a mapping between the balancer's (protocol, port) and the backend server's (protocol, port)—which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose and core semantics without any wasted words. It is concise yet informative.

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 create operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and the relationship between parameters. It could mention prerequisites or return value, but these are not critical given the straightforward semantics and annotation support.

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 covers all five parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning by clarifying that balancer_proto/balancer_port and server_proto/server_port form paired endpoints of the mapping, which is not explicit from individual schema descriptions alone.

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 the specific verb 'создаёт' (creates) and clearly identifies the resource as a routing rule for a balancer, explaining the mapping between balancer and backend protocol/port pairs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_balancer, update_balancer_rule, and delete_balancer_rule.

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 the tool is for creating routing rules, and sibling names hint at related operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or list prerequisites such as an existing balancer. No exclusions or explicit usage context are provided.

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