Править карточку публикации

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful behavioral boundary: it does not touch the graph, and market_release is for that. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether the update is partial or full replacement.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and fields, then adds the crucial sibling distinction. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter update tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this description provides enough selection context: what is edited, what is not touched, and which sibling to use instead. It could mention return behavior or update semantics, but nothing essential for correct tool selection 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description paraphrases a few fields (title, description, category, show_origin) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Меняет карточку публикации' (changes the publication card) and enumerates the affected fields (название, описание, раздел, подпись делом). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from market_release, so an agent can tell this tool apart from its closest sibling without inspecting the schema.

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 a clear when-not-to-use signal: for graph changes it points to market_release instead. It does not discuss broader alternatives like market_publish or mention prerequisites, but the core routing between update and release is explicit.

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