Добавить примечание

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare the mutation/idempotency profile), the description discloses the credential requirements (AMOCRM_DOMAIN, AMOCRM_TOKEN), the auto-respected 7 req/s amoCRM rate limit, the return value (note_id), and an explicit consent workflow for a write operation. These are substantive behavioral facts the annotations do not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries information, but the description runs to five dense clauses where examples like the call-summary list are somewhat expendable. Slightly long, though no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value; for a mutation tool with auth and rate-limit constraints it covers credentials, throttling, consent, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema itself documents text, entity_id, and the entity_type enum. The description merely echoes the entity kinds already in the enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb and resource — adds a plain text note to the feed of a deal, contact, or company — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming crm_update_lead (field changes) and crm_create_task (tasks). An agent can tell exactly what this tool is and is not.

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?

It states what the tool is for (call summaries, agreements, comments), what it is not for, and names the two alternative tools with the condition that selects each. Nothing about when to route here versus elsewhere is left to inference.

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