Выполнить задачу заявки

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: revision is mandatory (optimistic-concurrency guard) and automatic tasks are rejected, both of which affect whether/how the call succeeds.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and packs three distinct facts (outcome source, mandatory revision, automatic-task restriction) with no filler. Efficient, though the semicolon-chained structure is terse enough to be slightly hard to parse.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials for invocation (identity, outcome, data, revision, key constraint). It omits the case parameter's selection logic and the request_id/task_id relationship, and says nothing about the failure/response surface.

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 17%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains that outcome comes from the card's outcomes, that data carries field values, and that revision is required — but it leaves case and request_id (and the relationship between task_id and request_id) unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (завершает) and resource (задачу) plus the identifier used (UUID), so an agent immediately knows this completes a request task. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. tasks_cancel vs requests_cancel), but the 'automatic tasks cannot be completed manually' clause helps differentiate the operation.

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?

Provides a when-not rule ('Автоматические задачи вручную завершать нельзя') and a precondition ('Обязательна revision'), which is useful usage context. However it never names an alternative tool for the cases it excludes, so the selection logic is only implied rather than explicit.

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