Установить из маркета

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) only sketch the profile, while the description adds real substance: no replacement of existing flows, auto-enable only with flow.publish, others need flows_publish, foreign connection links are stripped from the graph, and repeated installs produce copies. None of this is derivable from the structured fields.

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: the core action and its additive/non-replacing nature come first, then prerequisites, side effects, and the update path. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the run-on style is slightly heavy for a 6-line description.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full picture an agent needs: permission gating, non-replacement, link stripping, AI-node parameter requirements, and the copy-on-repeat behavior used for updates. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema: omitting provider/knowledge_base causes AI nodes to answer with emptiness or hallucinate, and repeated install semantics apply to the item/name pairing. The 'case' default behavior is left to the schema.

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+resource ('Ставит публикацию боту новым сценарием') and immediately scopes it as additive ('рядом с существующими, ничего не заменяя'). It also distinguishes itself from neighbors: flows_publish for enabling later scenarios, market_get for checking requirements, and repeated install as the update path.

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?

Gives clear operational context: check requirements via market_get field «нужно», pass provider/knowledge_base to avoid broken AI nodes, and use a repeat install to refresh to a newer version. It names the alternative tools, though it does not state an explicit 'do not use this when...' condition.

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