Запустить подтверждение прав

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent), the description discloses the expected verification state (usually IN_PROGRESS) and the specific 409 conflict error. It also explains external prerequisites (TXT record, file, meta tag), adding useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences, each carrying essential information: action, prerequisites, response, and error. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 a tool with no output schema, the description explains the response by referencing get_verification_status, which is an acceptable shorthand given the sibling context. It also covers the likely error case. However, it does not fully enumerate possible verification_state values, leaving minor ambiguity if the referenced tool is not understood.

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%, but the description enriches the enum values with specific instructions for each verification_type (DNS, HTML file, meta tag). It also clarifies the optional host_id and its fallback to an environment variable, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool 'запускает проверку прав на сайт' (launches site verification) using a selected method, which is a specific verb-plus-resource action. It distinguishes itself from get_verification_status by focusing on starting the verification rather than querying status.

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 provides clear prerequisite guidance (place UIN code before calling) and references the sibling get_verification_status for the UIN and response format. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative actions, the context is sufficient to infer that this tool is for initiating verification.

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