ybiz_update_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does: it discloses that `changes` replaces top-level keys wholesale, null values delete keys, invalid branches are not saved, and the feed is not rebuilt. It doesn't cover auth, idempotency, or failure modes like nonexistent branch, but core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the essential data semantics and the cross-tool follow-up. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers validation behavior, feed rebuild, and change semantics. It doesn't state error behavior for missing branches or permission requirements, but the provided context plus output schema is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does for the critical `changes` parameter with an example and precise semantics (replacement of top-level keys, null deletion). `company_id` and `workspace` remain schema-only, but their names are self-explanatory; the key behavioral parameter is thoroughly documented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Изменить поля филиала' (modify branch fields), making it clear this is an update operation on a branch, distinct from add/get/list siblings. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or scope constraints, 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 final sentence 'Фид не пересобирается — вызови ybiz_build' explicitly instructs when to call ybiz_build after this tool, and the validation note implies a guardrail before saving. It does not explicitly state when to prefer ybiz_add_branch over this update, so no 5, but the usage context is clear.

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