Изменение плавающего IP

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

The annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description consistently indicates a mutation operation. It adds the specific fields being changed (comment/PTR) but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as DNS propagation delays for PTR updates, prerequisite checks, or error behavior. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 consists of a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Изменяет' (changes) and directly states the action and object. There is no redundant or irrelevant information; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the resource, the fields to update, and the requirement of an ID. Combined with the fully-described input schema and annotations, an agent can invoke it correctly. It lacks a mention of return values, but that is not critical for a straightforward update.

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 schema descriptions already cover all three parameters (floating_ip_id, ptr, comment) with 100% coverage. The tool description mentions 'comment and/or PTR' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as formats or validation rules. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the full schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Изменяет' - changes), the target resource ('плавающего IP' - floating IP), and the fields affected ('комментарий и/или PTR-запись'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_floating_ip, delete_floating_ip, bind_floating_ip, and unbind_floating_ip, and it is not a mere restatement of the title.

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 makes it clear that this tool should be used when updating the comment or PTR record of a floating IP, identified by its ID. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the specificity of the action and fields provides clear context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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