Закрыть задачу

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the required auth (BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm, task, user rights), the 2 req/s rate limit that is handled automatically, and the consent workflow for a write operation. It also confirms the idempotent no-op behavior, adding operational context the agent needs.

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 the purpose, then layers idempotency, consent, auth and rate-limit notes in a tight set of sentences with little waste. Slightly dense, but every clause carries useful operational information.

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 two-param mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, auth prerequisites, rate limiting, and consent. It is essentially complete for correct invocation, missing only an explicit note on what the completion returns.

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 both parameters (id, result) are already documented. The description mentions the result comment ('комментарием-результатом'), adding marginal reinforcement but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Отмечает задачу выполненной') and clarifies the optional result comment. The agent can distinguish this completion action from siblings like b24_create_task and b24_tasks without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the usage context (marking a task done, optionally with a result comment) and notes the idempotent behavior for already-closed tasks. However, it does not name any alternative tool or state explicit when-not conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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