Сохранить заготовку ответа

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

Annotations already signal mutation via readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds behavior beyond that: reply toggles between creation and editing, and title is optional but affects whether the template has a name and can be invoked. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences, with the main behavioral branch front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence adds a meaningful nuance about title without unnecessary detail.

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 save tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, it covers the key create/edit distinction and the practical consequence of omitting title. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but schema coverage and annotations carry enough of that burden.

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 schema documents all four parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that reply switches between new and existing templates and that title is needed for invoking the template later, which is useful semantic context.

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 action and resource: without reply it creates a new template ('заводит новую заготовку'), with reply it edits an existing one ('правит существующую'). This clearly distinguishes the tool's behavior from list/delete siblings and explains its core create-or-update semantics.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use each mode: omit reply for a new template, include reply to edit an existing one. However, it does not explicitly route to alternatives such as replies_list or replies_delete, so it stops short of full when-to-use vs alternative guidance.

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