Удалить тип заявок

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the exact-name confirmation requirement and, importantly, the collateral consequence that snapshots of already created requests are preserved — a material side effect an agent cannot get from the 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 tight sentences, the destructive action and its required identifiers front-loaded, with the side-effect note immediately after. No filler.

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 destructive three-required-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description covers the safety-relevant facts (exact-name confirmation, retained snapshots). The main remaining gap is that version/case semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is why it falls just short of complete.

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 25%: confirm_name and type_id have no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by stating the name must be exact/verbatim (дословному названию), which is the critical semantics of confirm_name, and by tying type_id to UUID. It adds no meaning for version or case, so it fills the gap only partly.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (deletes a request type) plus the three identifiers it needs, so it is clearly distinguishable from requests_types_list/requests_types_save by name. It does not explicitly reference those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names the sibling tools an agent should compare against. The destructive intent is only inferable from the verb and the annotations.

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