Изменить сделку

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: tags replace the current set rather than appending, and status_id 142/143 mean won/lost, plus a consent requirement before persisting.

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, front-loaded with the operation and field list, followed by the safety instruction. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place given the sparse schema, though it reads as one heavy run-on sentence.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description supplies the field semantics, the tag-replacement caveat, status codes and a consent step. It omits error/permission behavior, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 only 13%, so the description carries the load — it maps nearly every one of the 8 parameters to a business meaning (name, price as budget, status/pipeline, responsible, tags, custom_fields by field_id). It still doesn't clarify units for price or how pipeline_id interacts with status_id, so it falls short of fully compensating.

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?

States a specific verb (Меняет) and resource (сделку) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can immediately separate it from crm_create_lead and crm_get_lead. The scope of the operation is unambiguous.

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 gives one real workflow guideline — show the user what will be written and obtain consent before writing — but says nothing about when to prefer this over siblings or what prerequisites (permissions, pipeline existence) apply. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explained.

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