Остановить рассылку

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

Annotations declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: already-sent messages cannot be recalled and counters remain, i.e. the operation is a partial, irreversible-in-effect stop. It does not contradict destructiveHint=false since no data is deleted. Lacks note on permissions or response, keeping 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?

Three compact sentences, effect stated first, then the two sibling routes. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core outcome and the relevant alternatives, and annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of noting permission requirements or confirming what the call returns, which would complete the picture.

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% and both parameters (case, broadcast) already document names/IDs and the default-case behavior in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter format or defaults, 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 and resource ('Останавливает рассылку') and immediately clarifies the effect ('то, что ещё не ушло, не уйдёт'), which distinguishes it from broadcasts_delete and broadcasts_retry. An agent can pick this over the siblings 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: retry failed sends goes to broadcasts_retry, creating a new draft from this broadcast goes to broadcasts_duplicate. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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