Изменить номенклатуру

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write, and the description adds the meaningful two-phase dry-run/apply contract plus partial-update semantics. It stops short of permissions, failure behavior, or what the preview returns (the operationId flow lives only in the confirm parameter's schema text).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key, then the dry-run contract, then the partial-update rule. No filler; slightly clipped phrasing but efficient.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: identity key, mutable fields, and the preview-then-confirm pattern. Only the ref-resolution path 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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the rich confirm/dry-run instructions and the database lookup hint. The description's parenthetical mapping of fields and the 'only pass changed fields' rule add some value but largely restate the schema, so 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 names a specific verb ('Изменяет') and resource (реквизиты номенклатуры), identifies the key (Ref_Key) and enumerates the mutable fields. It is clearly distinguishable from write.catalog.create_nomenclature by the update semantics, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It states an explicit conditional workflow: preview by default, apply only with confirm=true, and pass only the fields being changed. It does not say how to resolve the Ref_Key (e.g. via find_nomenclature/list_entities) or when the generic write.entity.update_entity would be preferable.

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