Провести / отменить проведение документа

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: preview-first semantics, the operationId deduplication on retry after timeout, and the caveat that post/unpost run separately with CAS atomicity unconfirmed. That is meaningful risk disclosure beyond the annotations. The clause about PostingModeOperational=false is opaque internal jargon an agent cannot act on.

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 core facts are front-loaded (post/unpost, then dry-run default), which is good, but the middle is a run of sentence fragments with inconsistent capitalization ('применение — при confirm=true') and an unexplained internal flag. Several clauses read as machine-translated filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials: preview/confirm gating, retry/dedup behavior, and version requirements. It leaves unstated whether unposting also needs expectedDataVersion and what happens to an already-posted document's lines, but nothing critical to a correct call 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 100%, so the schema already documents ref, post, repost, confirm, operationId and expectedDataVersion, including the repost prerequisite. The description restates the repost parameter combination without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the structured field does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: it posts a document (affecting accounting) or cancels posting. That is unmistakable, and no sibling tool performs posting/unposting, so an agent can select it correctly. It does not explicitly name the related sibling (write.operation.status) for checking operation progress, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description gives a clear operating model: dry-run by default, execution only with confirm=true, and re-posting of an already posted document requires repost=true, post=true and expectedDataVersion. It does not state when to prefer an alternative route (e.g. checking state via write.operation.status before retrying) or when unposting is inappropriate.

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