⚠️ CPA: complaint by actionId

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

The description discloses irreversibility ('a complaint cannot be withdrawn') and default confirmation requirement, which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true). It also explains idempotencyKey behavior. No contradictions with 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 essential: purpose, irreversibility, and usage guidance with limit and alternative. No redundant information. Front-loaded with a warning emoji.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, behavioral consequences, rate limit, and distinguishes from sibling. For a mutation tool with good annotations, this is complete.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The overall description adds contextual value (e.g., requiring actionId from preceding calls, example text, dryRun explanation), raising the score above the baseline 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 'Files' and the resource 'external complaint with Avito about a CPA target action', and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'cpa_post_create_complaint' by noting it covers both calls and chats. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 explicit prerequisites (requires actionId from preceding calls), a rate limit (3 requests/min), and notes preference over an alternative tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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