Сверить сведения о сообществе

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value by disclosing the side effect: the panel updates the dialog name, bot position, and blocking flag. This explains why the call is not read-only. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the side effect and the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence carries information, though the panel-update clause is dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (participants, link, bot position) and the local state change. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though exact return format and error behavior are left implicit.

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 both parameters ('case' and 'dialog') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntactic or format detail about them, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it queries the platform about a group or channel for participants, link, and bot position. It also distinguishes itself from the similarly named 'dialogs_get' by noting that the latter serves reading saved data. An agent can tell this fetches live community data apart from sibling tools.

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?

It names an explicit alternative and the condition selecting it: for reading saved data, use 'dialogs_get', implying this tool is for live platform queries. However, it doesn't address the many other dialog siblings (dialogs_list, dialogs_history) or state any exclusions beyond that one contrast.

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