Удалить визитки

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as permanence, side effects, or permissions, but it doesn't contradict the annotations. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a neutral baseline.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the endpoint in parentheses for technical reference, and contains no filler. Every word 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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations. The description, while minimal, covers the essential purpose and resource. It omits nothing critical for an agent to call it correctly, though it could elaborate slightly on multi-id deletion semantics, which the schema already conveys.

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% for the single 'ids' parameter, which already explains it contains the ids to delete. The description echoes this without adding new meaning, such as format constraints or relationships to other resources. Baseline for high coverage is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action (Удаляет – deletes), the resource (визитки – business cards), and the criterion (по id – by id). It also includes the API endpoint (vcards/delete), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like delete_callouts or delete_ad_groups.

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 description clearly indicates the tool deletes vcards by id, and sibling tools are for other resources, so the use case is inferable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For a simple delete operation, this is adequate but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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