discard_rhr_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО' and names the object that will be canceled, which is useful. It does not add other behavioral context such as irreversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects, so it remains at a middle score.

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 very short and front-loads the action, with the destructive warning placed immediately after. Minor redundancy ('Отменить/закрыть' and the parenthetical 'rhr/discard') prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the operation, the target, and the destructive nature. It could be more complete by clarifying the expected state after cancellation or explicitly requiring confirm=true in prose, though the schema already covers the confirm flag.

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%, with both id and confirm documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter values, formats, or relationships beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 action (cancel/close) and a clear resource (заявка на удалённые работы, rhr/discard), so an agent can tell this is the cancellation counterpart to create/list/add-comment rhr tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 verb 'Отменить/закрыть' implies this tool is for canceling an existing remote-work request, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Sibling tools like create_rhr_request and list_rhr_requests are not referenced, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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