Удаление группы правил firewall

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

The description states 'Действие необратимо' (irreversible), but the annotation destructiveHint is false. This directly contradicts the annotation, as deleting a firewall group is clearly a destructive action. Per the rubric, any contradiction with annotations yields a score of 1 and triggers the annotation_contradiction flag.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential warnings and guidance. No redundant or verbose content. This is an appropriately-sized, well-structured description.

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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the irreversible nature and the recommended pre-deletion step. It lacks only minor details like error handling or behavior with linked resources, but the core context is complete. The annotation contradiction slightly detracts from overall completeness, but the description itself is fairly thorough.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description of group_id as the required ID. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Удаляет группу правил firewall' explicitly states the action (delete) and the target (firewall rules group), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like delete_firewall_rule. The verb+resource combination is specific and 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 provides a concrete preparatory step: 'Перед удалением рекомендуется отлинковать все связанные ресурсы через unlink_firewall_resource'. This gives clear context for when to use this tool and a recommended prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternative deletion tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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