bx24_bots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists topic areas and API versions. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, event polling behavior, or destructive potential; the destructive hints appear only in the schema's action enum and confirm parameter, not in the narrative description.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and version, then lists functional areas. The RU/EN keyword list adds minor redundancy but remains short and does not undermine clarity.

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?

This is a large multi-action tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a category list. It omits prerequisites such as a registered bot or client_id, how event_get polling works, and any return-shape or error context, leaving the detailed action enum to carry the operational weight.

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 every parameter already documented, including detailed per-action semantics in the action enum. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource (Bitrix24 chat bots v2) and functional scope (bot registration, chats, messages, reactions, commands, files, events), and names the API family (imbot.v2.*). It is distinguishable from CRM/tasks/projects siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related bx24_im and bx24_im_chat tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bx24_im or bx24_im_chat, and mentions no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria. The RU/EN keyword list aids search but does not help an agent decide between sibling tools.

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