LessonTariffsAddTariffDuration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a non-idempotent mutating operation, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It doesn't state whether existing durations can be overwritten, whether duplicates are allowed, or what the response contains. The description adds almost no behavior beyond the annotations, so it doesn't exceed the 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, short sentence with a clear verb+object structure. It is appropriately concise for the purpose, though it could benefit from a brief note on usage or required parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, plus a mutating action, the description is somewhat thin. However, the schema covers all parameters and the operation is straightforward: adding a duration option to a tariff. With no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain returns. The missing piece is usage context, but the description is adequate for a simple add operation.

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%, with the description array covering all five parameters. The schema descriptions are in Russian and provide field-level meaning (e.g., bodyDuration = 'Продолжительность лекций в минутах в пакете'). The tool description itself adds no parameter context, but because the schema fully covers semantics, the baseline of 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?

The description 'Add a duration option to a lesson tariff' clearly identifies the action (add) and resource (lesson tariff), making the purpose immediately clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'LessonTariffsGetTariffDurationList' or 'LessonTariffsDeleteTariffDuration', but the add/read/delete distinction is inferable from the names.

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 no context about when this tool should be used versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it creates a new duration option within an existing tariff, or that it relates to package-like structures with price, lessons count, and expiry period. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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