Удаление правила балансировщика

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

The description states 'Действие необратимо' (the action is irreversible), which directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. Since destructiveHint indicates whether the operation destroys data irreversibly, this is a clear contradiction and the description actually provides conflicting information to the agent.

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 at two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a critical note about irreversibility without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the important trait of irreversibility. It omits potential details like prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist) but such information is likely unnecessary for this simple tool. The low complexity justifies a high completeness score.

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 provides full descriptions for both required parameters (rule_id and balancer_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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 the action ('Удаляет' - deletes) and the specific resource ('правило маршрутизации у балансировщика' - routing rule of a balancer). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_balancer_rule and update_balancer_rule by specifying deletion.

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?

Usage is implied from the verb 'Удаляет' and the resource type, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. A more explicit note about needing an existing rule or being preferable to update for removal would raise the score.

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