Удалить заготовку ответа

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds the crucial behavioral nuance: only the template is removed, while previously sent messages remain unaffected. This is exactly the kind of contextual detail an agent needs beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundancy. The primary effect is stated first, followed by an important clarifying side-effect boundary. Every word earns its place.

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 simple deletion tool with a required reply parameter and an optional case parameter, the description plus schema fully covers what the tool does, what is affected, and what remains. No output schema is needed for this operation.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with full descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no hidden semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the 100% schema description coverage.

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 ('Убирает') with a clear resource ('заготовку из списка') and adds a scoping detail: sent messages remain, only the template itself disappears. This clearly distinguishes it from other delete-like siblings such as cases_delete or dialogs_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 makes the intended use clear: it removes a reply template without deleting the messages sent using it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context and sibling naming make the appropriate selection evident.

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