⚠️ CPA: жалоба по actionId

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

The description states the tool is 'необратимо' (irreversible), which contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. The annotations declare the tool is not destructive, but the description implies it is. Beyond this contradiction, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error conditions, response details) are disclosed.

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 extremely concise—one sentence—and front-loads the critical information (purpose and irreversibility). Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary content.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that lack crucial hints, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, error cases, or usage context. The irreversibility note adds some value, but overall completeness is low.

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 documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or details about parameters, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Создание' (creating), the resource 'жалобы на звонок или чат CPA' (complaint on a CPA call or chat), and the key parameter 'actionId'. It also notes irreversibility. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'cpa_post_create_complaint', which likely has a similar purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cpa_post_create_complaint'. The description only mentions the actionId parameter and irreversibility, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool should be preferred.

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