Удаление правила firewall

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

The description adds the warning 'Действие необратимо' (The action is irreversible), which is valuable behavioral context. However, this directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint: false, which implies the operation is not destructive. This inconsistency creates an annotation contradiction and undermines the agent's ability to assess the operation's true risk.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence for the purpose and a second short clause for the irreversible nature. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter delete operation, the description is sufficiently complete given the strong schema and annotations (aside from the contradiction). It clearly states what the tool does and adds an important caveat. However, the contradiction with destructiveHint prevents a perfect score, and there is no mention of what happens to dependent resources or whether the group must exist.

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 of both parameters (rule_id and group_id) with clear descriptions and required flags. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra context about parameter values, formats, or relationships is given.

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 правило из группы firewall' (Deletes a rule from the firewall group). It uses a specific verb with a specific resource, and the title and name align. It is also distinct from sibling tools like delete_firewall_group, which delete the whole group, whereas this tool targets a single rule.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_firewall_group or update_firewall_rule. It does not mention prerequisites (like an existing rule_id) or conditions for safe use. The context implies it is for removing one rule from a group, but that is not explicitly stated.

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