Уменьшение количества нод в группе

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

The description explicitly states the action is irreversible and nodes cannot be restored, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, directly contradicting the description's claim. This is a serious inconsistency, warranting a score of 1 per the rubric.

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 consists of two short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the primary function and then adds the critical irreversibility warning. No redundant or filler content.

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 mutation tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key consequence. However, the contradiction between the description's destructiveness and the annotations' destructiveHint=false undermines the overall completeness, confusing the agent about the tool's safety profile.

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 100% coverage with clear Russian descriptions for all three required parameters: count (number of nodes to delete), group_id, and cluster_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the action: 'Удаляет указанное количество воркер-нод из группы' (Deletes a specified number of worker nodes from the group). It specifies the verb, resource, and quantity, and the name 'reduce_k8s_node_group_nodes' matches the purpose. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'increase_k8s_node_group_nodes' and 'delete_k8s_node_group'.

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 does not provide any contextual guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scaling down, nor does it contrast with deleting individual nodes or increasing nodes. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and operation type.

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