Изменить материал

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

The description reveals important non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: changed text triggers reassembly to prevent stale bot answers, and link materials live as snapshots unless refetch=true is used. This adds meaningful operational context and does not contradict the 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?

The description is four dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding a distinct and useful piece of context.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotation richness, the description covers the operation scope, key constraints, reassembly behavior, and the refetch snapshot lifecycle. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for refetch (page fetched once at addition, then lives as snapshot) and for text (triggers re-slicing), which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Правит название и текст материала' (edits the title and text of a material). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_add_document or knowledge_delete.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to edit an existing material's title/text, with automatic reassembly. It also explicitly states an exclusion — source type and link cannot be changed — and explains the refetch behavior for link materials, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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