Изменить сделку

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

Adds real operational context beyond the annotations: required BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm/task/user rights, an auto-enforced rate limit, and a consent/write-preview requirement for a mutating call. The idempotency statement largely repeats idempotentHint=true, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and front-loaded: mutation scope first, then constraints, then auth/limits. A couple of clauses (the idempotency note, the generic 'modifies data in Bitrix24') restate structured data and could be trimmed.

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 annotations but no output schema, the description covers auth, consent, rate limiting, error conditions, and partial-update semantics. Return-value behavior is unspecified, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: only changed fields should be sent, and at least one field besides id is required or the call errors. The won/lost semantics pointer for stage_id is also useful non-schema context.

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 сделку') plus the exact mutable fields (stage, amount, responsible, title, description), and cross-references b24_portal for stage semantics. An agent can immediately tell this is the field-update tool rather than the sibling b24_create_deal.

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 a clear usage rule ('pass only what changes; without fields — error') and a routing hint for closing deals via stage semantics from b24_portal. It does not explicitly distinguish when to prefer update vs create or get, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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