shortlist_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose one non-obvious trait: data is enriched from Saby ('Данные подтягиваются из Saby'), implying an external lookup and possible latency/failure. It does not state whether repeat calls are idempotent, what happens when 'inn' already exists, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the secondary update behavior immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence sits apart without connecting to the parameters.

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 not be described, and the upsert + Saby enrichment traits are covered. For a 3-parameter, zero-coverage schema with no annotations, the definition still leaves the agent guessing about INN format, valid statuses, and duplicate handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not: 'inn', 'note', and 'status' are never explained, nor is the allowed set of status values (the schema only hints at a default of 'интересно'). It only obliquely maps 'note'/'status' to the update capability.

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 ('Добавить компанию в шорт-лист') and adds the important nuance that it also doubles as an update path for note/status. Sibling differentiation is left implicit — the name pairs with shortlist_remove/shortlist_show, but the description never names them.

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 parenthetical '(или обновить заметку/статус)' signals when to reuse this tool instead of a separate update call, which is genuine usage guidance. There is no guidance on the add-vs-remove boundary, prerequisites, or what to do if the company is already shortlisted.

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