Отвязка ресурса от группы firewall

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral consequence that rules no longer apply after detachment, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose side effects or reversibility, but the basic effect is covered.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently states the operation and its effect.

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 unlink operation, the description is largely complete: it names the operation and its consequence. It could mention reversibility (linking again) or error cases, but given the low complexity and schema richness, it is sufficient. No output schema exists, so return values are not explained, but that is not critical for this mutation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action: 'Отвязывает ресурс от группы правил firewall' (detaches a resource from a firewall rules group). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the effect is described, distinguishing it from the sibling 'link_firewall_resource'.

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 the use case (when you want to stop applying firewall rules) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'link_firewall_resource' or list functions. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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