Зарегистрировать договор (ОРД)

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

The description discloses behaviors beyond what annotations provide: it returns {id} and apiPointBalance, and it explicitly states that erroneous contracts remain forever because there are no update/delete endpoints. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which don't cover irreversibility or the return payload. This added context helps the agent understand side effects.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary information: the core purpose and return value, type-specific field requirements, the parentId exception, and the irreversibility warning. It's front-loaded with the main verb and resource, then elaborates logically. No irrelevant details or fluff.

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 complex 12-parameter tool with a nested object and conditional logic, the description covers all critical aspects: return format, type-specific required fields, the special case of additional agreements, and the lack of edit/delete. It doesn't elaborate on the meaning of apiPointBalance beyond 'remainder of weekly API points', but that suffices given the absence of an output schema. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Although the schema describes every parameter (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantic logic: it explains which fields are required for each type, when cid or parentId is rejected, and how intermediary fields interact with parentId. This is not fully captured in the schema's static descriptions and is essential for correct invocation, especially for nested objects and conditional requirements.

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 states the exact purpose: 'Регистрирует договор ОРД между аккаунтом и рекламодателем' (registers an ORD contract between an account and an advertiser). It also specifies the return value ({id} and apiPointBalance) and clearly differentiates the three contract types. As the only contract creation tool among siblings, the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it is the sole creation tool and the description clarifies when each contract type should be used (service, intermediary, external) and the special case of parentId for additional agreements. It also warns that there are no edit/delete endpoints, implicitly guiding the agent to be careful. The guidance is clear, though a direct 'use this when creating a contract' statement is missing.

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