Выложить сценарий в маркет

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: links to connections and knowledge bases are stripped, manually entered addresses/keys are published as-is, the case name is hidden unless show_origin is set, and the result is visible to all panel users. No contradiction with 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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: visibility scope, data sanitization warning, privacy caveat, permission and follow-up tools. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers pre-flight checks, side effects, privacy concerns, permission requirements, and the post-publication update path. Nothing essential 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%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds value by clarifying show_origin semantics (case name hidden until enabled) and implicitly tying flow to the current revision's graph. Other parameters are fully documented in 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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair: publishes a case scenario to the market, making the card and graph visible to all users and installable. It also differentiates itself from sibling market tools by explicitly naming market_release and market_update for post-publish edits.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: warns to verify the graph via flows_get before publishing due to unsanitized node text, states the required market.publish permission, and directs edits after publication to market_release and market_update. This clearly positions the tool relative to alternatives.

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