Удалить рассылку

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses what actually gets destroyed (the broadcast plus its report), a required precondition (stop a running broadcast first), and the irreversible nature of sent messages. This is meaningful behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler; the destructive scope is front-loaded and the precondition/warning follow in priority order.

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 mutation with annotations already covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the essential extra context (report deletion, stop-first precondition, irreversibility). Minor gap: it doesn't reinforce the confirm_name confirmation requirement, though the schema covers it.

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 all three parameters (case, broadcast, confirm_name) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Удаляет рассылку и отчёт') and even adds the extra scope that the associated report is deleted too. However, it does not name or contrast the sibling it is easily confused with (broadcasts_cancel), leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('Идущую сначала остановите') and an explicit limitation ('отправленное не отзывается'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and when it is not. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (broadcasts_cancel) directly.

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