Снять вложение рассылки

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state safely without destruction. The description adds the precondition that the broadcast must be a draft or not yet started, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify whether the attachment itself is deleted or merely unlinked, nor does it describe permissions or error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It delivers the essential scope constraint immediately.

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 simple mutation with full schema documentation and annotations covering mutation/safety, the description's scope constraint is sufficient to invoke correctly. It omits return-value detail, but no output schema exists, and the precondition is the main behavioral nuance.

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% for both parameters (case, broadcast), so the schema already provides full semantic detail. The description adds no parameter-level information, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Снимает вложение) and resource (черновика или ещё не начавшейся рассылки), distinguishing it from broadcasts_attach by direction and from broadcasts_delete/cancel by scope. The qualification 'draft or not-yet-started' helps identify the tool, though it does not name a sibling alternative 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?

The description implies usage by restricting to drafts or not-yet-started broadcasts, which serves as a when-to-use condition. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that other broadcast states are handled by broadcasts_cancel or broadcasts_delete.

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