Переместить объект в папку

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is given. The description adds that the operation sets Parent_Key and that a preview/confirm cycle exists, but it remains silent on important behavior: whether a missing folder is created or errors out, and whether child elements move with the object. The dry-run mechanics are actually spelled out in the schema's confirm parameter, not here.

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?

Four short fragments, front-loaded with the action and the parent-key effect; no filler. The trailing 'dry-run/confirm.' is telegraphic and would be better placed with the confirm guidance, but the entry stays compact and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutation that rewires hierarchy, an agent would benefit from knowing what happens when the folder is unresolved and what gets changed on the object; those gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema, including folder accepting a name or Ref_Key and the confirm/dry-run protocol. The description restates rather than extends this — it repeats 'folder — имя папки или Ref_Key' and the Контрагенты default verbatim. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the meaning.

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 concrete verb+resource: moves a catalog element (e.g. контрагент) into a folder/group by setting the parent (Parent_Key), and notes the default catalog is Контрагенты. This differentiates it reasonably from write.entity.create_folder and write.entity.update_entity, though the near-duplicate sibling write.counterparty.set_group is never mentioned, so an agent cannot fully separate the two.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'По умолчанию справочник Контрагенты' and the terse 'dry-run/confirm' note. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of write.counterparty.set_group or write.entity.create_folder (e.g. folder must already exist vs. be created), leaving real selection ambiguity among siblings.

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