Удаление плавающего IP

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

The description clearly states this tool deletes a floating IP, which is a destructive operation. However, annotations declare destructiveHint: false, directly contradicting the described behavior. This is a serious inconsistency, and no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. It is concise and efficient.

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 one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., unbinding the IP) or effects (e.g., irreversibility), and the annotation contradiction further reduces completeness.

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 covers the single parameter floating_ip_id with a full description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'по его ID' simply mirrors the schema without adding new meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Удаляет' (deletes) and resource 'плавающий IP' (floating IP) with the method 'по его ID' (by its ID). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_floating_ip, bind_floating_ip, unbind_floating_ip, and update_floating_ip.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool or what alternatives exist. The usage is implied by the name and description, but there are no notes about prerequisites or scenarios such as unbinding before deletion.

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