Установить из маркета

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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond the annotations: foreign connection links are stripped, AI 'Answer' nodes require provider and knowledge_base to avoid empty or off-topic responses, and repeated installation yields an additional copy. These details align with and enrich the annotations (idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 sentences long and information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded and important caveats following. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence contributes operational value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 the moderate complexity (six flat parameters, two required, no output schema), the description covers key behavioral caveats and points to market_get for requirement checks. It does not describe the return value, but that is not critical for correct invocation, especially in absence of an output schema.

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 all six parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond contextualizing provider and knowledge_base for AI nodes, which is useful but not essential given the schema's clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Ставит публикацию боту новым сценарием' (installs a publication to the bot as a new scenario). It also explicitly differentiates itself from flows_publish by stating this action does not enable the scenario in work, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 direct routing guidance: use flows_publish when you want the scenario enabled, and use market_get to check required fields. It also explains that reinstalling the same publication creates a fresh copy, which is the intended update path.

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