Обновление балансировщика

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

The description adds the patch semantics (only provided fields are updated), which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites, or return value. Annotations already mark it as not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The first states the action, the second gives the key optionality rule. Ideal structure.

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 tool with 24 parameters and no output schema, this description is too brief. It omits return format, error conditions (e.g., non-existent balancer_id), and implications of idempotentHint=false. The rich schema covers parameter meaning but not operational context.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's note about optionality partially repeats the schema's required field list but adds the 'pass only changed fields' advice, which is helpful yet not per-parameter semantics.

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 'Обновляет параметры существующего балансировщика' (Updates parameters of an existing balancer), specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates from create/delete by emphasizing 'existing', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Все поля кроме balancer_id — опциональные; передавай только то, что меняется' (all fields except balancer_id are optional; pass only what changes). This tells the agent when to use it and how to construct calls, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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