discard_rhr_request

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

The description explicitly warns 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО: заявка будет отменена' (DESTRUCTIVE: the request will be cancelled), which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description reinforces and adds the specific consequence: the request will be cancelled. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is two short sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded, and the destructive warning is placed immediately after, which is exactly the information an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring destructiveHint=true, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the consequence, and the confirm requirement is already in the schema. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what happens after cancellation (e.g., whether it can be undone or what the response looks like), but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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 the schema already documents both parameters: id is the request ID and confirm must be true to execute. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Отменить/закрыть' – cancel/close) and a specific resource ('заявку на удалённые работы' – request for remote works), and it names the operation's domain (rhr/discard). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_rhr_request or add_rhr_comment; the resource and action are specific enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a remote-works request needs to be cancelled or closed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes create_rhr_request and add_rhr_comment, so the context is reasonably clear. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, so it stops at implied usage.

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