bitrix_attach_task_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the confirm requirement already present in the schema. It does not disclose side effects, whether the operation can be undone, required permissions, or how the result record relates to task completion.

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?

The description is one concise sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the confirm clause is redundant with the schema.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents its parameters, so an agent can form a valid call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return behavior, side effects, and usage context, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the description adds little beyond baseline. The mention of confirm=true duplicates the schema's own 'must be true' semantics rather than providing new parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Зафиксировать') and resource ('результат работы по задаче') and identifies the underlying API method tasks.task.result.add. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like bitrix_add_task_message or bitrix_complete_task.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative task-related operations such as adding a message or completing a task. The confirm=true note is a parameter prerequisite, not tool-selection guidance, so an agent still has to infer the appropriate context.

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