Завести контрагента или точку

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: there is no separate 'point' entity, parent_person_code links to the parent card, the tool requires write mode, and repeating with the same code updates rather than creates. This is valuable added context and matches idempotentHint and destructiveHint.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, modeling, write-mode requirement, and idempotent behavior. No filler or redundancy; the key gotcha is front-loaded.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential modeling rule, the write-mode precondition, and upsert semantics. It does not describe the return shape, but the schema already documents the parameters and the annotations carry safety flags.

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 high (90%), so the baseline is 3. The description enriches two critical parameters by explaining that parent_person_code models a network point and that code determines update-vs-create behavior, adding meaning not explicit in the schema.

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?

Description states clearly 'Создаёт юрлицо в справочнике' and explains what a 'точка сети' is in terms of this tool. This precisely frames the tool's purpose and separates it from siblings like smartup_contractors or reference/setup tools.

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 gives usage context: it is for creating a legal entity or network point, requires write mode, and warns about upsert behavior when reusing a code. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the precondition and modeling guidance are enough for correct selection.

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