Вернуть диалог сценарию

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful effect context — that it removes the human operator and returns control to the scenario — but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, or what happens to any operator-set state.

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 that states the effect immediately with zero padding or repetition. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description conveys the essential effect adequately. Only marginal gaps remain (post-release state, whether the operator is notified), which are minor for this complexity level.

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 already fully documented in the schema, including the default-case fallback logic. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, 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?

States a specific action (removing the operator and returning dialog control to the scenario), which is a concrete verb+resource combination. However, it does not name or differentiate itself from similarly-named siblings such as dialogs_update, dialogs_reset_stage, or dialogs_forget_memory, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many dialog-related siblings. The context (handing a dialog back to automation) is implied by the verb but never framed as a selection condition.

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