Yougile Stickers

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add value by tagging each operation as [read] or [admin], which signals permission and side-effect expectations. It does not disclose confirmation requirements, irreversibility, return behavior, or failure behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and the operation list is compactly structured with access labels. There is some repetition in the Russian labels and access tags, but for a 14-operation facade the list is an efficient way to expose capabilities.

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?

The tool is complex and has no output schema or per-operation parameter schemas, so the description offers the bare essentials: operation names, access levels, and a route to yougile_help for parameters. It does not explain the domain meaning of stickers/string/sprint/state, return values, or error behavior, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding how to use it.

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?

The schema only defines the generic params/confirm/operation envelope; the description's instruction to call yougile_help('stickers.<operation>') is a useful pointer for resolving operation-specific parameters. However, the description itself does not define any parameter names or meanings, so it adds a mechanism but not actual parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool's domain as Yougile custom stickers ('string/state and sprint') and their states, and enumerates concrete operations (list/create/get/update), so an agent can see it is a CRUD-style facade. It is not a tautology and is distinct from siblings like yougile_tasks, though it never defines what a 'string' sticker is, so it stops short of being fully specific.

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 explicit statement about when to use this tool instead of a sibling or which operation to choose in a given scenario. The access list is informative but does not guide selection, and the only practical instruction is to call yougile_help for parameter details.

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