Изменение конфигурации сервера

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait not captured by annotations: applying changes will require downtime for the server. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, which are all false but don't describe operational impact.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: it states the core function, the key side effect (downtime), and a helpful prerequisite reference. No fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main action, the two configuration modes, a significant side effect, and a cross-reference for presets. It could mention the mutual exclusivity explicitly, but the schema already does, so the description is adequately complete.

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 descriptions already cover each parameter with mode-specific explanations and mutual exclusion constraints (e.g., preset_id cannot be used with configurator_id). The description reiterates the two modes but adds no significant new details beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't push beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool changes a server's tariff or custom configuration and applies to an existing server. It specifies the two modes (preset_id vs configurator_id with cpu/ram/disk/gpu). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling update_server tool, which may also modify server settings.

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 context (applies to existing server, requires downtime) and points to get_allowed_presets for obtaining preset list. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with update_server, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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