Добавить комментарий к заявке

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — a comment does not require revision — but says nothing about permissions, visibility of the comment, or failure behavior.

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 zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is thin: it omits permissions, the effect of the comment (where it appears in history, who sees it), and how the 'case' fallback interacts with the request. Annotations carry the safety profile, so it is adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 only 33%: only the 'case' parameter is documented, while required 'text' and 'request_id' carry constraints but no explanatory text. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the low 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?

States a specific verb and resource: adds text to the request's history (история заявки). The added clause that a comment does not require revision helps distinguish it from a full requests_save, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternative tools. An agent must infer that this is the lightweight append path versus requests_save, and nothing states prerequisites or when comments are inappropriate.

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