Изменить контрагента

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, which leaves the two-phase behavior unstated. The description adds the crucial trait that the default call is a preview and no write occurs unless confirm=true, plus the partial-update rule. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the preview/apply disclosure is the important behavioral fact.

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 what changes and keyed on Ref_Key, then the dry-run/apply mechanics, then the field rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 present, return values need no explanation, and 100% schema coverage covers the 11 parameters. The description supplies the workflow context an agent needs to call it safely. Minor gap: it does not mention prerequisites or what happens to fields left out.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by adding partial-update semantics ("Указывайте только меняемые поля") and identifying Ref_Key as the selector. It does not clarify fields the schema omits from its enumeration, but the added meaning is real.

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 specific verb and resource in Russian ("Изменяет реквизиты контрагента по Ref_Key") and names several editable fields (наименование/ИНН/КПП/полное имя). The update-vs-create distinction is implicit in the verb but the description never names a sibling to route away from. Only 4 of the ~9 editable fields are enumerated, so it under-describes slightly.

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?

Gives clear operating context: dry-run is the default, confirm=true applies the change, and only changed fields should be passed. It does not state when to reach for a sibling such as write.entity.update_entity or set_group instead, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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