Удалить расширение

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds two meaningful behavioral facts: deletion requires confirming the exact name, and the server may block deletion when the extension is used by scenarios. These are non-obvious constraints an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and followed by the confirmation constraint and scenario-protection caveat. No filler; slightly terse but nothing wasted.

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 destructive 3-parameter tool, the annotations already carry the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds the confirmation flow and scenario-protection caveat. Remaining gaps (post-delete effects, permissions) are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 67%; case and extension are described in the schema, but confirm_name has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that confirm_name is the exact name used as a confirmation, giving real semantic value for the undocumented parameter.

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+resource ("Удаляет подключение", deletes a connection/extension) which is disambiguated from siblings like extensions_save and extensions_list by the delete verb. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the destructive action is unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: the confirmation requirement (exact name) and the note that "the server protects operations used by scenarios" hint at preconditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not 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.