Изменение сетевого диска

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

The annotation set already indicates readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Размер можно только увеличивать' (size can only be increased), which is a critical behavioral constraint. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description and helps the agent avoid invalid calls.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by critical constraints. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content. This is an example of efficient, high-density writing.

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 full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, the modifiable fields, the size restriction, and the minimum-input requirement. No output schema exists, but the tool's behavior is well-framed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without additional 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 coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining the size field can only be increased, and that at least one of name/comment/size must be provided. This supplements the schema, which only marks network_drive_id as required and would otherwise allow an update with no changes.

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 ('Изменяет параметры сетевого диска' – changes network drive parameters) and specifies the affected fields (name, comment, size). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from related tools like create_network_drive, delete_network_drive, and other update_* siblings.

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 context by indicating this tool updates an existing network drive and lists the modifiable fields. It also states a key requirement: 'Нужно указать хотя бы одно из полей' (must specify at least one of the fields). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use create_network_drive to create a new drive'), so it stops short of the highest tier.

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