rx_call_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaning beyond them: the action may mutate data, is not always reversible, RX returns 404 (not a validation error) when a required parameter is missing, and the agent must confirm intent with the user first. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then routing rule, then risk/error behavior, then the confirmation requirement. No filler sentences.

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?

No output schema, so nothing is owed for returns, and the 404/destructiveness caveats cover the main failure modes. The one gap is how an agent discovers valid module/action names and their required params (e.g., whether a describe/search sibling should be consulted first), which is left implicit.

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% and both parameters are documented (action format Module/Action, params as a JSON object). The description's 'по имени (Модуль/Действие) с параметрами' largely restates the schema, adding no format or discovery guidance for the action-specific params object, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: calling a named Directum RX module action (Module/Action) with parameters. It also distinguishes itself from the entire rx_* family by scoping itself to operations without a dedicated tool, so an agent can route correctly without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only for operations that don't have a ready rx_* tool') and an explicit when-not rule implied by the same sentence. It adds operational conditions (missing required param yields 404) and a mandatory pre-call step (retell the user what will happen).

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