Обновление группы правил firewall

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

The description adds the explicit constraint that the group policy is not changed through this endpoint, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or error cases, but the annotations already cover the basic safety profile.

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?

A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It states the purpose and a critical limitation in minimal words, with no redundancy.

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 update operation with fully described parameters, the description adequately scopes the action and clarifies what is not affected. It does not describe return values or behavior on non-existent groups, but these are not required for a basic update tool and no output schema exists.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description's statement that name and/or description can be updated aligns with the schema but does not add additional semantic detail about the parameters themselves, such as format, constraints, or validation rules.

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 'Обновляет' (updates) with a clear resource 'группы правил firewall' and states the exact fields affected (name and/or description). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_firewall_rule and create_firewall_group.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to update the name or description of a firewall group. It also explicitly states what is not changed ('Политика группы через этот эндпоинт не меняется'), which helps the agent avoid using it for policy changes. However, it does not name alternative tools like update_firewall_rule.

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