Отключить бота с выбором сохраняемых данных

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotent=false, but the description meaningfully adds that an exact-name confirmation is required, that flows/dialogs/broadcasts/journal are retained by default under an archive entry, and that flows can be handed off to another bot. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and confirmation requirement, then defaults, then the optional transfer. No filler, though it could more tightly tie the retention sentence to the keep_* switches.

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 destructive, 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation requirement, default retention, and the transfer option. Minor gaps remain around the 'case' scoping and error behavior, but annotations plus full schema coverage carry the rest.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including their defaults. The description only reinforces confirm_name and flows_to semantics without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Отключает бота') and adds the distinguishing constraint that data is preserved under an archive record rather than purged. This implicitly separates it from siblings like bots_delete or bots_save, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the default-retention semantics hint that this is the non-destructive alternative to deleting a bot, but there is no explicit 'use this when... instead of...' statement and no prerequisites (permissions, irreversible effects) called out.

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