Комментарий в таймлайн

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the return value (comment_id), that every call appends a new comment, that it mutates Bitrix24 data and requires showing the user the text and getting consent, the required BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm/task/user scopes, and the auto-enforced 2 req/s rate limit. Annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) are consistent with this text.

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?

Front-loads purpose and scope, then behavior, then auth/limit requirements — a logical order with little waste. Some content (the consent reminder, the repeat of the append behavior) is boilerplate-adjacent, which keeps it from a 5.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, which entities it targets, the return value, the consent requirement, and the auth/rate-limit constraints. Nothing essential 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 67%: text and entity_id carry inline descriptions and entity_type carries an enum, so the schema does most of the work. The description restates the entity types but adds no format, length, or ID-resolution guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource (adds a comment to the timeline) and enumerates the exact entity types it accepts: deal, lead, contact, company. No sibling tool covers comments, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives concrete usage context by naming typical content — call results, agreements, notes — which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites for choosing it over other record-mutating tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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