Создание Kubernetes-кластера

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (external side effects), and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds only the fact that the tool 'creates' a cluster, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like long-running execution, cost implications, or required permissions. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists required and optional parameters. However, the inclusion of the erroneous 'OIDC' reference is a minor clarity issue, and the structure could be slightly improved by separating prerequisites from optional flags, so it loses one point.

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?

This is a complex tool with 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is a bare summary that omits key contextual details: it does not mention that cluster creation is likely asynchronous, that certain parameters like project_id or network_id may be required in practice, or what the response returns (e.g., cluster ID). The misleading OIDC reference further detracts from completeness, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces an undocumented parameter by mentioning 'OIDC' as optional. The input schema has no OIDC property, which is misleading and could cause an agent to attempt passing a non-existent parameter. The rest of the parameter hints (required fields, preset_id/configuration exclusivity) merely repeat what the schema already states, adding no net positive value.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Создаёт новый Kubernetes-кластер' (Creates a new Kubernetes cluster). It specifies the resource (Kubernetes cluster) and the action (create), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_k8s_node_group, edit_k8s_cluster, or delete_k8s_cluster. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clearly identifies the context for use (creating a new cluster) and provides actionable parameter guidance, such as required fields and the mutual exclusivity of preset_id vs configuration. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for existing clusters or node groups), which prevents a perfect 5.

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