Создать или изменить дело

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context: becoming the owner, the five roles expanded, and the archive action. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary create behavior, and every clause earns its place. It's concise yet covers both modes and the side effects (ownership, roles, archive) without waste.

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?

The tool has two modes and non-trivial side effects, but the description covers them adequately. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't mention return values, which would be helpful. However, the action is clear and the schema fills in parameter details, so it's nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter documented. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation. The schema already explains the 'case' parameter's omission behavior, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 creates or modifies a case, with an explicit verb for each mode ('создаёт новое' and 'меняет'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cases_list, cases_get, and cases_delete by describing its dual create/update behavior.

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 provides clear conditional usage: omit 'case' to create, specify it to update. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the conditions are explicit and easy to follow. No exclusions are mentioned, but none are needed.

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