Изменить маршрут заявки

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds real context beyond them: that the entire workflow is replaced, that a revision is checked (optimistic-concurrency guard), and that request.manage permission is required. It stops short of describing the revision-mismatch failure mode.

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, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every clause (full replacement, revision check, permission) carries weight.

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 complex tool with a nested steps/edges workflow object, no output schema, and partial schema coverage, the description covers the key operational facts (permission, revision guard, full replacement) but omits the conflict behavior on revision mismatch and any return/error semantics.

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 50% (request_id and revision have no schema descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for 'revision' by framing it as a checked value, but leaves request_id and the nested workflow structure entirely to the schema. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Заменяет workflow заявки целиком') and clarifies the operation is a full replacement rather than a patch. It is distinguishable from siblings like requests_save, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives it is not.

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?

The prerequisite ('Нужны права request.manage') and the full-replacement scope imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or named alternative such as flows_save or requests_save. Usage must be inferred.

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