Удаление IP-адреса сервера

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

The description states the tool deletes an IP address, which is a destructive action, but the annotation destructiveHint=false claims the tool is not destructive. This is a direct contradiction that would confuse an agent about the operation's effects. No additional behavioral details are provided beyond the main-IP constraint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a critical limitation without redundancy. Every word is useful and contributes to understanding.

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 is mostly complete. It covers the operation and the key limitation. However, it does not mention error behavior or whether deletion is reversible, and the annotation contradiction reduces overall clarity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains what ip and server_id are. The description adds a constraint about the main IP not being deletable, which slightly aids parameter selection, but does not meaningfully go beyond the schema.

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 (deletes a specific IP address), the resource (server), and includes a scope constraint (main IP cannot be deleted). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_server_ip and list_server_ips by specifying the exact deletion of an 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?

The description implies when to use this tool, and explicitly notes a when-not: the main IP cannot be deleted. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other IP management tools, which prevents a 5.

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