Edtb Plan Mutations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical no-side-effect trait ('БЕЗ применения'), the per-op validation performed, and the two-phase deletion nuance via confirmToken for deleteMetadata. It does not mention error behavior or prerequisities, but the main behavioral risk is well covered.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core scope and constraint, the second details what happens per op, and the third defines the return contract for downstream tools.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and only ops is required, the description covers the intended lifecycle: validate, get hash/confirmToken, then apply or perform two-phase deletion. It stops short of documenting the optional projectPath and the exact op payload shape, so it is not a 5.

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 0%, so the description had to compensate by explaining the parameters. It adds some meaning to ops: each op is a mutation whose schema, target addressability, and risk are checked. However, it never explains how to structure an op and says nothing about projectPath (optional, default null), leaving substantial parameter semantics undocumented.

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 opens with 'Провалидировать пакет мутаций БЕЗ применения' – validates a mutation batch without applying – giving a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the checks (schema, target addressability, risk) and explicitly orients the output toward edtb_apply_mutations, distingushing it from the applying sibling.

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 phrase 'БЕЗ применения' clearly frames this as a pre-flight validation step, and the return contract ('hash для edtb_apply_mutations') signals that this tool is the prerequisite before applying. It lacks an explicit 'use edtb_apply_mutations instead when you want to apply' exclusion, so it does not earn a 5.

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