Удалить строку документа

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: mutation is restricted to unposted documents and cannot empty the table. The dry-run/confirm hint supplies the two-phase safety protocol. It does not describe the failure mode when LineNumber is out of range.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its constraints; nothing superfluous. The trailing «dry-run/confirm.» fragment is terse but functional, since the schema spells out the protocol.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to cover scope and constraints, and it does: tabular section, unposted-only, non-last-row, confirm flow. Error/edge-case behavior for a missing or stale LineNumber is the only notable gap.

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%, including the exact lineNumber wording «Номер строки (с 1)» and the full confirm/operationId protocol, so the description is essentially restating the schema. It adds no meaning beyond that baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (delete a line by LineNumber from the «Товары» tabular section of an existing document) and adds scoping facts an agent could not infer: only unposted documents, the last row cannot be removed. That makes it clearly separable from add_document_line and update_document_lines 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?

Preconditions are stated (existing НЕПРОВЕДЁННЫЙ document, row number 1-based, last row not removable) and the dry-run/confirm flow is flagged. It does not, however, point at an alternative such as update_document_lines for bulk changes or say what to do when the line does not exist.

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