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

The description explicitly says the tool 'удаляет' (deletes) labels, yet the annotation declares destructiveHint=false, which per MCP semantics claims only additive updates. These cannot both be true for the delete action, so this is a direct annotation contradiction. The genuinely useful extras (partner-vs-account ownership, sibling for viewing) do not offset the conflict.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with each subsequent sentence adding distinct value (label semantics, viewing sibling, ownership). No filler or repetition, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a three-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no reliable annotations (they contradict the delete behavior), the description covers the conceptual model and routing but omits reversibility of delete, required permissions, and any outcome/error information. Adequate but with clear gaps given the operation's complexity.

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 the schema already documents name, action (with enum), and source_id, including the rename/create rules. The description adds conceptual context about what a 'метка' is but no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opening sentence names three specific verbs (create/rename/delete) acting on a concrete resource (partner-link source labels), so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It further distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by pointing to get_partner_program for viewing, letting an agent tell the two apart without opening either 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 explicitly routes the read use case to another tool ("Сами метки и статистику по ним показывает get_partner_program"), which is clear alternative guidance. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or which action to prefer in a given situation, leaving that to be inferred from the schema enum.

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