import_funnel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the multi-step pipeline and the optional dry-run flag, suggesting a non-destructive preview or validation step. However, it remains vague on whether publish is irreversible, whether nodes/edges are replaced or merged, and what happens if both graph and graphFile are provided, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is two short, dense sentences with all key information front-loaded. It lists the step sequence and the inline/file input options with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's composite nature (6 parameters, nested graph object, no output schema, no annotations), the high-level overview is insufficient. Critical behaviors are missing: the ambiguous '/start' meaning, conflict handling for existing graphs, the role of name, and the response format are all left unexplained. The description is not complete enough for safe autonomous use.

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?

The description adds meaning to graph (inline) and graphFile (file path), and mentions dryRun as optional and publish as a step. Yet it does not explain the name parameter or the required botId, and schema coverage is only 17% (only graphFile has a description). Thus the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 explicitly enumerates the composite action: 'Всё за раз: создать граф, залить узлы/рёбра, (опц.) dry-run /start, опубликовать'. This specifies the exact verb sequence (create, upload, optional dry-run, publish) and resource (graph), clearly distinguishing it from single-step siblings like create_graph or publish_graph.

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?

The phrase 'Всё за раз' implies this tool is meant for a one-call full pipeline, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over chaining the individual sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than clearly spelled out.

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