Создать или изменить заявку

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds real value beyond them: the revision/optimistic-locking requirement, that data supplements existing values, that null values clear assignee/due date, and that type and initial links are create-only. It omits what happens on a stale revision conflict.

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, information-bearing sentences with the create-vs-edit distinction front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though a bare enumeration of rules without any structural grouping.

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 12-parameter, dual-mode mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description covers the trickiest fields but leaves the create-mode field set and several parameters (dialog_id, counterparty_id, source_message_id, description) unexplained, so an agent cannot fully determine valid payloads.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate heavily. It usefully explains request_id, revision, data, assignee_id=null, due_at=null, and type_id, but leaves many params undocumented (title, dialog_id, counterparty_id, source_message_id, description) and never states what a minimal create needs given zero required fields.

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 clear dual-purpose verb+resource: it creates a request when request_id is absent and edits it otherwise. This distinguishes the tool from read-oriented siblings like requests_get, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives concrete when-to-use conditions: omit request_id to create, supply request_id plus revision to edit, and pass only changed fields. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., requests_get for reading the card/revision), so it falls just short of a 5.

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