Создать контрагента

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

The annotations state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial behavior the annotations cannot express: the call is a dry-run by default, the real write lands in the production database, and confirmation is mandatory. It stops short of explaining duplicate handling or what the preview result contains, although both are partly covered by the operationId field description.

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 then the safety-critical rule; nothing is redundant. Capitalized emphasis and repeated 'без подтверждения не создавайте' slightly duplicate the same instruction, but this is deliberate for a risky operation.

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?

With an output schema available, return values needn't be described, and the schema carries parameter detail. For a 12-parameter write tool against a live database, the definition covers the essential confirmation workflow; only duplicate detection and error behavior are 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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters, including confirm and operationId. The description reinforces the confirm/dry-run protocol but adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description gives a concrete verb plus resource: 'Создаёт нового контрагента в справочнике' leaves no doubt about the effect on 1C counterparties. It does not name the closest siblings (write.counterparty.update_counterparty, create_contact_person, create_bank_account), so an agent must infer the distinction from the noun alone.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the call sequence: preview the default dry-run to the user, then re-invoke with confirm=true only after explicit consent, and never create without confirmation. The gap is the absence of any comparison with sibling write tools or guidance on choosing a target database.

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