Прогнать сценарий

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

Description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that dialogs are not saved, delays are skipped, external requests and service-chat messages are not executed, and AI nodes consume real model limits. This gives the agent critical behavioral information beyond the raw readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences: purpose, behavior, parameter usage, and a warning. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states what the tool reports (trigger, steps, bot response) and covers important side effects and safety-relevant behavior. Combined with full schema coverage, it is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for variables by explaining how they substitute accumulated conversation state to test branches and substitutions, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Проверяет сценарий без Telegram' and names the exact outputs (trigger fired, steps passed, bot's would-be reply). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like flows_get, flows_save, or flows_publish.

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?

Clear context is provided: use it to simulate a scenario without Telegram, with the option to inject variables to test conditional branches and substitutions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage intent is unambiguous.

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