suggest_access_profile

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. It reveals key traits: keyword-based matching (no LLM), the NEED_CLARIFICATION response, the requirement to keep answer order, and a strong warning to never skip step 1. It doesn't cover failure modes or edge cases, but it goes well beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with clear sections for modes and protocol, a numbered two-step process, and a final imperative warning. Every sentence contributes necessary context; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the entire interaction lifecycle: first call, server response (questions), user clarification, second call with answers, and the expected profile output. It explains the two-step flow enough for an agent to execute 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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the two-step meaning of `answers` (omitted → questions, provided → profiles), the ordering constraint, and a concrete example for `request_text`. This exceeds schema descriptions.

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 ('Подбирает' - selects) and resource ('профиль(и) группы доступа 1С:БИТ.ФИНАНС') with a clear methodology (keyword-based, no LLM). It also explains the single/multi modes, distinguishing this tool from siblings like `suggest_profile_by_job` and `search_by_role`.

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?

Provides a clear two-step protocol with explicit instructions: first call without `answers`, second call with `answers`. It also gives an example of when multi mode is appropriate (storekeeper). However, it doesn't name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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