Удалить дело

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds concrete details: which entities are destroyed, and that deletion cannot be undone ('Восстановить нельзя'). This gives the agent a clear picture of the irreversible destructive scope, which is more than the annotation alone.

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?

The description is just two sentences, both information-dense. The first states the action and its scope, the second states irreversibility and the alternative. There is no redundant or filler content, making it optimally concise.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is fully complete: it tells what is deleted, warns about irreversibility, and gives an alternative for a milder action. Combined with the schema's 100% parameter coverage, the agent has all the information needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters (case, confirm_name) have full schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; there is no need for the description to repeat what the schema already provides.

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 deletes an entire case ('Удаляет дело целиком') and enumerates exactly what gets deleted (bots, scenarios, correspondence, participants, roles). It also distinguishes itself from archiving via cases_save, making it unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'Чтобы просто убрать дело из списка, используйте cases_save с archived=true' (to simply remove from list, use cases_save with archived=true). This tells the agent when not to use this tool, which is exactly the needed guidance.

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