Создать группу контрагентов

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the two-phase preview/confirm protocol, the idempotency contract via operationId, hierarchy/parent validation, and a post-write control read. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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 main action leads, followed by parent semantics, workflow, and the usage exclusion; no filler sentences. It is dense to the point of being a run-on, with the preview/confirm mechanics packed into one clause chain, but every clause carries information.

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 mutating creation tool with an output schema available, the description covers the safety workflow (preview, confirm, control read), idempotency, root-parent edge case, and scope limits. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates by defining the non-obvious semantics of parentRef (empty GUID = root) and the role of confirm within the preview/confirm flow, neither of which the schema explains. The 'name' and 'database' parameters are left to the schema, which is acceptable since 'database' is documented there.

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 and resource ('создаёт ... группу контрагентов') and immediately scopes it ('только явно названную группу', 'в указанной группе parentRef'). An agent can distinguish this from create_counterparty, set_group and create_folder without opening any schema.

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 gives a clear when-to-use sequence (validate parent, preview, then confirm with the same operationId) and an explicit when-not ('не создаёт произвольные бизнес-группы без поручения владельца'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as set_group for moving existing counterparties into a group.

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