Обновление правила балансировщика

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the API expects a complete rule description, implying a full overwrite semantic. This goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the clear purpose and immediately followed by the most important usage constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and simple update semantics, the description covers the core behavior. However, the ambiguous 'except id' statement creates a completeness gap, and there is no information about error cases or prerequisites. The full-overwrite note is present, but the id confusion lowers the overall completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description states 'all fields except id are required', which is ambiguous and contradicts the schema where all 6 parameters including rule_id and balancer_id are required. This misleading guidance could cause the agent to omit a required field, making the description worse than no parameter info.

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 verb 'updates' and the resource 'balancer routing rule', which distinguishes it from siblings like create_balancer_rule and delete_balancer_rule. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 key usage guidance: all fields except id are required and the API expects a full rule description. This tells the agent to send a complete replacement, not a partial update. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the update verb makes the use case clear.

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