Загрузить сценарий из выгрузки

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: existing flows are left untouched, name collisions get a numbered suffix, the loaded flow lands as a draft without flow.publish, and unresolved AI/knowledge references are stripped with each removal reported in the response.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then collision/behavior, then permission gating, then reference handling. Every sentence carries information, though the reference-removal clause is a slightly long tail.

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 an import operation with no output schema, the description supplies the behavioral consequences an agent needs: draft-vs-published outcome, permission requirement, collision handling, and that removed references are reported in the response. Nothing material is missing.

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 the schema already documents bot, case, name, and document. The description reinforces that document is the flows_export payload and explains the numbering behavior triggered by name, but adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Заводит сценарий') and names the exact source of its input ('объект, полученный через flows_export'). This distinguishes it cleanly from flows_save, flows_restore, and flows_export among the siblings.

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?

Explains the precondition (input comes from flows_export), the permission gate (flow.publish for auto-enable, otherwise draft), and routes the agent to flows_publish for enabling the rest. When-to-use and prerequisite conditions are all explicit.

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