Установка NAT-режима сервера в локальной сети

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

The description explains the behavioral outcome of each mode ('полный доступ', 'только исходящий', 'изоляция в локальной сети'), which adds value beyond the schema. Annotations already indicate it's a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. However, it stops short of warning about potential side effects like connection disruption when switching modes, which could be important.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and the three modes. No filler or redundant 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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the effect of each mode and the overall action. It lacks explicit usage guidance and side-effect warnings, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity.

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%, with both server_id and nat_mode already described in the schema. The tool description recaps the enum meanings but does not add substantial new information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Меняет' (changes) with a clear resource ('правила маршрутизации трафика') and lists the three possible modes with their meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling server tools like set_server_boot_mode or update_server.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this when needing to alter a server's NAT mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other server configuration tools), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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