Снять связь диалога с контрагентом

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context by stating exactly what survives — the counterparty card and the conversation — which explains why the operation is non-destructive. It still omits whether re-running is safe and what happens if no link exists.

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 filler; the scope constraint is presented immediately. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but as a structural matter there is no 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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, so the description's scoping statement covers the core behavioral question. However, for a mutation tool it leaves usage guidance, the meaning of the two UUID parameters and edge cases (link absent, repeat calls) unaddressed.

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), and the description mentions no parameters at all. The phrase 'the explicitly specified link' weakly implies that counterparty_id and dialog_id identify the target, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 name, title and description together state a specific verb+resource: removing the link between a dialog and a counterparty, with the description clarifying it removes 'only the explicitly specified link.' It is clear what happens, though it never names the inverse sibling counterparties_link, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to the counterparties_link alternative or the reverse operation. The scoping clause ('only the specified link') hints at behavior rather than when this tool should be chosen over its siblings.

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