⚠️ CPA: жалоба на звонок

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

Description adds the behavioral trait of irreversibility ('необратимо'), which is not captured by annotations. However, with annotations already covering readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc., the added context is minimal but meaningful.

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?

Single sentence is extremely concise and front-loaded with warning emoji and irreversibility note. No structural issues, but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 presence of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on response format, error states, or behavior of optional parameters like dryRun. Irreversibility note helps, but completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the broader purpose.

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?

Description clearly states creation of a complaint about a CPA call, using specific verb 'Создание' and resource 'жалоба на звонок CPA'. It distinguishes from sibling 'cpa_create_complaint_by_action_id' by name and targeted entity (call vs action), but does not explicitly differentiate in the description text itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cpa_create_complaint_by_action_id'. The only usage hint is 'необратимо' (irreversible), which is a warning but not a conditional guideline.

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