Пометить на удаление

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds information the annotations cannot convey: the operation is a soft delete, data is not physically erased, and by default nothing is written (dry-run). That meaningfully de-risks the call. It omits the operationId round-trip and permission expectations, so not a full 5.

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 the toggle semantics, then the dry-run/confirm rule, then the motivating use case. No filler and no repetition of schema detail.

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 full schema coverage, existing output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the two things an agent must know: it is reversible/soft and it defaults to dry-run. Only the operationId-continuation and database-default nuances are left solely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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% and the schema already documents ref, mark, confirm (including the operationId handshake), database and entitySet. The description restates the mark toggle and the confirm workflow at a high level but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and its inverse ('ставит/снимает пометку на удаление') applied to a named resource ('объект'), and immediately clarifies the 1C soft-delete semantics, which distinguishes it from write.entity.update_entity and the other write.* siblings. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the 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 concrete use case ('убрать ошибочно созданную запись') and the two-step workflow (default dry-run, repeat with confirm=true). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this (e.g., versus update_entity for real edits), so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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