Создание группы правил firewall

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false). The description adds that the group is initially empty and can be populated later, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential errors, default policy behavior when omitted, or the operation's return value.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the action and required/optional fields; the second sentence provides workflow context. No words are wasted, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the operation returns (e.g., group ID or object) or error conditions (e.g., duplicate name). The references to subsequent tools (create_firewall_rule, link_firewall_resource) and optional field clarifications provide moderate context, but the lack of return/error information leaves some gaps.

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% – all parameters (name, policy, description) are documented in the input schema. The description only restates that name is required and description/policy are optional, adding no semantic value beyond the schema. The mention of policy as a query-parameter is already in the schema's description.

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 leads with 'Создаёт новую группу правил firewall' – a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from create_firewall_rule (which creates rules within a group) and link_firewall_resource (which attaches a group to a server), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the typical workflow: after creating the group, rules can be added via create_firewall_rule and the group can be linked to a server via link_firewall_resource. This gives clear contextual usage guidance, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond these sequential steps.

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