Создать или изменить тип заявок

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write with open-world scope, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: omitted description and fields are blanked out (data-loss risk on update), and route/participant-permission validation is delegated to the panel rather than the tool. Both are beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core operation front-loaded, the update prerequisite second, and the server-side validation caveat last. No filler, though it stops just short of fully explaining the update path.

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 7-parameter tool with nested workflow/fields objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential upsert semantics and the blanking hazard but omits case/type_id handling and says nothing about the result of a save. Adequate, with visible gaps.

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 low (29%), so the description carries extra weight. It names name, description, fields, workflow and the version-from-requests_types_list rule, but adds no structural meaning for the nested workflow/fields objects, and the case and type_id parameters are left to the schema or the sibling list call.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Сохраняет полное определение типа') and enumerates the definition's parts (name, description, fields, workflow), so an agent knows this is a full upsert of a request type. It is clear but does not explicitly separate itself from neighbours like requests_save or requests_types_delete beyond naming requests_types_list as the source of version.

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 states one real usage rule — version from requests_types_list is mandatory when modifying — which implies the create-vs-update split. However it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings or what the preconditions for creation are, so guidance is 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.