bort_person_upsert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: upsert semantics (create or update), the lookup precedence, and that it can attach to project and/or chat with a role. It omits what happens to existing fields on update, permissions/auth requirements, and reversibility, leaving notable gaps.

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?

A single dense sentence using semicolons to front-load the core action and then the matching logic and side effects. Efficient with no redundant filler, though the parenthetical matching detail could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain the return value and update-overwrite behavior. It adequately covers the mutation and attach behavior but leaves the notes parameter and the result/response undefined for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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% across 7 params, so the description must compensate. It maps clearly to role, tg_username, full_name (via 'имени'), attach_to_project_id/name, and attach_to_chat_id, adding real meaning over the bare schema. Only the 'notes' parameter is unaddressed, a minor gap given the otherwise strong coverage.

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+resource ('Создать или обновить человека') and clarifies the upsert matching logic (by tg_username, then by name), which distinguishes it from pure create/update tools. It does not name any sibling tool it competes with, but no sibling covers person entities, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 matching order ('ищется по tg_username, затем по имени') gives useful context for how the upsert resolves an existing record, which is a form of usage guidance. However there are no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statements or alternatives named, so it remains implied rather than directive.

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