Связать диалог с контрагентом

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

Annotations already declare the write/side-effect profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it links exactly ONE dialog, and the panel rejects a non-matching previous link rather than silently overwriting. That explains the safety semantics of replace_counterparty_id, which annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the replace-mechanism caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers the action and the replace-validation behavior but omits the case-selection and counterparty_id semantics. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 only 25% (only 'case' is documented), so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully explains dialog_id (single, explicit) and replace_counterparty_id (must be the UUID of the source card), but says nothing about counterparty_id itself or the case parameter, leaving two required/optional params unclear.

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+resource: linking one explicitly specified dialog_id to a counterparty card. The word "явно указанный" signals a direct/one-dialog link, implicitly distinguishing it from bulk/automated siblings like counterparties_reconcile. However, no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary with counterparties_unlink/counterparties_dialogs.

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?

Gives a real conditional instruction: pass replace_counterparty_id's UUID when transferring from another card. That covers one usage path, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over counterparts like counterparties_reconcile or counterparties_unlink. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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