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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosure — and it does: it states that scenarios referencing the constant will fail validation until they define a same-named constant. That is a concrete, non-obvious side effect that directly changes how an agent should behave.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the destructive consequence plus the recommended pre-check are front-loaded before any agent would act. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the key risk (breaking referencing scenarios) and the mitigation (check usedIn first) are both covered. It does not say what happens if the constant is absent or whether deletion can be undone, which leaves a small gap.

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%, with both botId and name fully documented in the schema (including the naming pattern and {{const.имя}} usage). The description only echoes 'name' indirectly ('тем же именем') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Удаляет константу бота'), and the follow-up makes clear this is a destructive removal distinct from bot_constant_set (which would define/replace a value). An agent can tell it apart from its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition — inspect usedIn via bot.constants.list before deleting — which is real operational guidance rather than vague context. It stops short of explicitly stating when deletion is inappropriate versus when to use bot_constant_set, but the recommended pre-check covers the main decision point.

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