Прямой вызов Webmaster API

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

Annotations already warn about destructive operations and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable specifics: DELETE is irreversible, body is only for POST, and {user-id} is auto-substituted. It does not cover response format or error handling, but for a raw API proxy this is acceptable.

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 four sentences, starting with the core purpose, then path construction, then body/DELETE warnings. Every sentence adds value; the first sentence is dense but informative. No fluff.

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?

For an open-ended raw request tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers path syntax, query parameters, body constraints, and destructive behavior. Minor gap: it only explicitly mentions {user-id} substitution, leaving other placeholders like {host-id} implicit. Otherwise it is adequate.

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%, so the schema already explains path, body, and method. The description adds a query-parameter-in-path tip and an example, but most parameter semantics repeat what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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 clearly states 'Прямой вызов любого пути Yandex Webmaster API v4' (Direct call to any Yandex Webmaster API v4 path) and specifies it is for endpoints without a dedicated tool, listing concrete examples like sitemap info, recrawl quota, and site deletion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific endpoints.

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?

Explicitly says 'для эндпоинтов без отдельного инструмента' (for endpoints without a separate tool), setting a clear use condition. It also provides guidance on path formatting, placeholder substitution, query parameters, body usage, and DELETE behavior, giving the agent sufficient context to decide when to use this raw fallback instead of a domain-specific sibling.

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