Отключить бота

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific consequences: deletion of commands, variables, dialogues, and irreversibility. This goes beyond the annotation, giving the agent a full picture of the tool's impact.

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?

Three short sentences: the first states the core action, the second describes consequences, the third gives an alternative. Every sentence adds value and the description is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the destructive behavior, scope, and irreversibility. It also provides a contrast with the non-destructive alternative, making the tool's usage context complete.

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 100% with clear descriptions for bot, case, and confirm_name. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool removes the bot from the case along with commands, variables, dialogues, and correspondence, and that restoration is impossible. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bots_save (used for temporary disablement).

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?

Explicitly provides an alternative for temporary disablement: 'use bots_save enabled=false.' This tells when not to use this tool and directs to the correct sibling, fulfilling the usage guideline requirement.

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