Настроить диалог

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation; the description adds a specific side-effect: switching to bot mode returns the conversation to the scenario and removes the operator. It also clarifies that multiple settings are changed together. However, it does not elaborate on other potential side effects like tag replacement, though the schema covers that.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a clarifying note about bot mode. It contains no redundant 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?

Given the schema covers all parameter details and annotations are present, the description provides a sufficient overview of the tool's behavior. The main gap is the lack of any mention of return values or error conditions, but since there is no output schema, this is a minor omission for an update operation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small extra detail about mode=bot ('снимает оператора') beyond the schema's enum description, but the rest of the parameters are only listed by name without further semantics, so the addition is minimal.

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 uses the clear verb 'Меняет' (changes) and specifies the resource 'диалог' (dialog), listing exact properties such as mode, AI, tags, pinning, and blocking. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling dialog tools (list/get/history/reply/delete) by identifying it as the update operation.

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?

The description implies the tool is for modifying dialog settings but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The sibling list shows other dialog operations, but the description does not reference them or state when not to use this tool.

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