Примечание к заказу

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the previous note is replaced entirely ('Прежнее примечание заменяется целиком'), that the order composition is untouched, and that write mode is required. These are concrete behavioral details an agent needs and they do not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentences, each carrying essential information: action and scope, prerequisite, and side effect. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with annotations and schema descriptions, the description covers the core behavior, the prerequisite, the destructive side effect, and what remains unchanged. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the schema already explains deal_id and note. The description adds context like 'header' and 'existing order', which slightly enriches the deal_id/note meaning, but it does not clarify the undocumented optional parameter filial_code. The added value over the schema is limited.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Пишет примечание в шапку существующего заказа' (writes a note in the header of an existing order). The clarification 'не трогая его состав' (without touching its composition) clearly distinguishes this from order creation or full-order updates.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a note must be added to an existing order without modifying line items. It also gives a clear precondition: 'Требует включённого режима записи' (write mode must be enabled). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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