Удаление балансировщика

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

The description states 'Действие необратимо' (irreversible), which directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's side effects. Therefore, it scores 1 and is flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then providing the crucial 2FA detail. It is efficient and free of unnecessary filler.

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?

The description adequately covers the primary behavior and the significant 2FA edge case, which is a non-trivial part of the tool's usage. It does not mention error handling or response format, but given the lack of an output schema, this is acceptable. The annotation contradiction slightly reduces completeness confidence.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context about the 2FA two-step flow, explaining that the first call returns a hash and the second call requires hash and code to complete deletion. This goes beyond the schema's static parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Удаляет балансировщик') and the resource, making it easy to understand that this tool deletes a balancer. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_balancer_rule by specifically targeting the balancer itself.

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?

No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is clear from the name and description. The 2FA flow is explained, implying the usage scenario. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparison with other delete tools, so the score is moderate.

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