calibrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only gestures at behavior with 'guardrail захвата' and a mention of a metric. It never discloses side effects, permissions, whether the call mutates the journal, or what the recommendation/guardrail actually does.

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 short sentences, but they are cryptic and under-specified rather than efficient — heavy jargon and an ambiguous metric clause that do not front-load an actionable purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least define the input and the returned recommendation. It leaves the agent guessing about both the parameter's expected form and the tool's actual effect.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter log_text has no description. The phrase 'по журналу решений' loosely implies the input is a decision journal, giving marginal meaning, but nothing explains format, size, or expected content of log_text.

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 names a deliverable ('Рекомендация подачи (светлый/тёмный)') and an input source ('по журналу решений'), but the verb is implicit and the phrasing ('guardrail захвата', 'одобрено-задним-числом') is jargon that never states plainly what 'calibrate' does. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from prediction_calibration or calibrated_consult_* siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. The description says nothing about the conditions under which this tool should be chosen over its many calibration-related siblings.

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