Отменить продолжение диалога

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that it cancels exactly ONE deferred action and where that action originates (dialogs_get), but does not describe what happens on an invalid/expired task_id or any return behavior.

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 action and the source of the input are stated 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 simple single-target cancelling tool with a fully covered schema and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It ties the task_id to dialogs_get, though it stops short of noting failure modes or confirmation of cancellation.

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 100%, so dialog, case and task_id are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the task_id source; it adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Отменяет одно отложенное действие') scoped to 'указанного диалога', and crucially ties the operation to dialogs_get as the source of the action. This distinguishes it from the surrounding dialogs_* and tasks_cancel siblings somewhat, though it does not explicitly contrast with tasks_cancel.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reference to dialogs_get and the required task_id convey that the agent must first fetch the scheduled action before cancelling it. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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