Загрузить сценарий из выгрузки

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false), the description reveals that existing flows are left untouched, unresolved AI service and knowledge base links are removed, and each removal is reported in the response. This adds substantial behavioral detail not present in the structured annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value and structure is clear.

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 creation tool with a complex nested document parameter and no output schema, the description explains conflict resolution behavior and response content for link removals. It hints at the response but could be more explicit about the success return value, yet given the available annotations it is reasonably complete.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description only adds context (e.g., the document is the whole export from flows_export) without giving deeper parameter-specific meaning. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states it creates a scenario from an export object obtained via flows_export ('Заводит сценарий из объекта, полученного через flows_export'). This distinguishes it from related tools like flows_save or flows_delete by focusing on the import-from-export use case.

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 implies usage after flows_export and clarifies that existing flows are not overwritten and name conflicts get numbering, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with flows_save for editing or specify when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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