pob_create_build

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value by disclosing that the current session is replaced, which is consistent with the destructive hint, but it omits what exactly is lost (unsaved work), whether confirmation or persistence is needed, and what the result looks like. 'Уровень задаётся в ручном режиме' is ambiguous about behavior.

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?

It is short and the creation action is front-loaded, which is good. However, the internal jargon 'оригинальным newBuild' and the ambiguous 'ручном режиме' consume the limited space without conveying actionable information to an agent.

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 destructive, all-optional-parameter build-creation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description should clarify default behavior when no parameters are supplied, the meaning of classId, and how a newly created build relates to the previously active session. None of that is present beyond the session-replacement note.

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% and all three parameters (name, level, classId) are undocumented in the schema. The description only touches 'level' with the vague phrase 'задаётся в ручном режиме' and says nothing about what name or classId mean, how classId relates to game classes, or what happens when all optional params are omitted.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Создать новую сборку' (create a new build) — and adds the scope note that it replaces the current session. It does not contrast itself with siblings such as pob_import_xml, and the phrase 'оригинальным newBuild' exposes an internal API name rather than user-facing meaning.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over pob_import_xml or when to start a fresh build instead of editing an existing one. The closest thing to routing information is the implicit hint that this is a from-scratch creation path, which the agent must infer.

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