Удалить контрагента

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the danger is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the collateral effect ('снимает её связи с диалогами') and the confirmation safeguard requiring the exact name. It does not address permissions or reversibility, so not 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The destructive action is front-loaded and the confirmation requirement follows 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, its side effect, and the confirmation guardrail; annotations cover the safety profile. It omits any mention of the returned result or failure behavior, but for an agent deciding whether/how to call it, this is 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 only 33% (only 'case' is described). The description compensates for confirm_name by explaining it must be the verbatim name for confirmation, which is genuinely useful. However counterparty_id remains undocumented and no format/behavior detail is added, so it does not fully cover the gap.

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 (удаляет) and resource (карточку контрагента) and even names a side effect — removing links to dialogs. This clearly separates it from sibling read tools like counterparties_get/list. It does not explicitly name which sibling it differs from, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 the destructive use case and gives a precondition (exact name needed for confirmation), but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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