fill_on_basis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it creates a new object based on an existing one and calls a standard method, but does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the base object), or behavior when base object is invalid.

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 sentences: first states purpose and mechanism, second provides an example chain. No redundant information, front-loaded with essential info.

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 tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It covers the core functionality well but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. More context would improve completeness.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions). Description adds context by explaining target_type and base_type as full object names, base_guid as UUID, and attributes as optional overrides. But it largely restates schema info with minimal extra meaning, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states it creates a new document/spr. based on an existing object, calls a standard mechanism, and gives an example chain (ЗаказКлиента → Реализация → СчётФактура). It distinguishes from siblings like create_object (general create) and copy_object (duplicate) by specifying the 'on basis' pattern.

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?

Description provides context for usage by mentioning it is key for document chains (e.g., ЗаказКлиента → Реализация), implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or provide alternative tool names, leaving some ambiguity.

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