Изменить сделку

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: tags replace the whole set, required env prerequisites (AMOCRM_DOMAIN/AMOCRM_TOKEN), automatic amoCRM rate-limiting at 7 req/s, the returned fields (updated and changed), and the instruction to obtain user consent before writing. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the partial-update rule leads, then field semantics, then return values, then dependencies and siblings, then the consent warning. Every sentence carries information, though the bulk of clauses makes it heavier than an ideal two-liner.

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 output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: partial-update contract, field migration rules, the shape of the response (updated/changed), auth/rate-limit constraints, error condition, and consent obligation. No critical gap remains.

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% so the schema documents each field, but the description still adds cross-field semantics the schema does not encode: pipeline_id is required when switching pipelines, and status_id 142/143 encode won/lost. It largely restates the tags and custom_fields formats already in the schema, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 (частично обновляет существующую сделку) and immediately scopes the operation (только поля, которые меняются). It then explicitly routes to siblings crm_create_lead for creation and crm_add_note for notes, so an agent can separate it from adjacent tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given (pass only changed fields) along with a failure condition (без изменяемых полей — ошибка) and named alternatives for the two adjacent operations. The migration semantics for status_id/pipeline_id and the consent requirement give the agent a clear decision procedure.

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