Указать группу отдельного контрагента

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses concrete behavior: only Parent_Key is touched, deletion and cycle checks run, expectedDataVersion is mandatory with PATCH/If-Match semantics, a preview/confirm/operationId flow exists, remaining fields are preserved, and deletion is unavailable. This is far more than readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint convey.

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 critical scope constraint is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information. The final sentence ('Удаление недоступно') is somewhat redundant with the earlier exclusion, and the paragraph is dense, but it is not padded.

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 concurrency-controlled mutation with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: preview/confirm flow, version requirement, preservation of other fields, and validation checks. It could say more about what the preview returns or how failures surface, but the presence of an output schema lowers that burden.

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 29%, but the description compensates for the ambiguous parameters: parentRef is the exact group or an empty GUID for root, expectedDataVersion is mandatory, and operationId comes from the preview and is passed with confirm=true to avoid duplicates. ref and database remain undocumented in the description, though database is covered in the schema.

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?

States a precise verb and object: changes ONLY Parent_Key of an individual counterparty, with the scope qualifiers (subjectKind=counterparty, IsFolder=false) spelled out. It also explicitly excludes moving groups, which distinguishes it from siblings like write.entity.move_to_folder and write.counterparty.create_group.

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?

Clearly frames the applicable case (re-parenting a single counterparty, not a group) and states the excluded case with a reason (descendant depth safety not checked). It does not name the sibling tool to use instead for group moves, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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