Удалить визитки

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not the sole carrier of the safety profile. It nonetheless adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: irreversibility is stated explicitly, and per-vcard failures surface as a list in the response rather than as a call error — a non-obvious contract worth knowing.

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?

Two short clauses, no filler, with the destructive/irreversible nature and the unusual error semantics both front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description admirably covers the key return-behavior quirk (partial failures returned as a list, not an error). It does not discuss the 10000-item limit or atomicity across the whole batch, but it is complete enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents that vcard_ids come from list_vcards and enforces the ID pattern. The description's 'по ID' adds nothing new; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Удалить визитки по ID'), making it immediately distinguishable from the delete siblings (delete_ad_groups, delete_sitelinks, delete_ad_extensions) and paired with list_vcards.

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 tool's usage is implied by 'delete by ID', and the schema points to list_vcards as the ID source, but the description names no alternatives or conditions (e.g., how to delete a single vcard vs many, or when to prefer other tools). Minimum viable.

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