Удалить дело

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it cascades to related entities and cannot be undone. This goes beyond the annotation flags and gives the agent a clear picture of consequences.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the destructive scope and irreversibility; the second gives the safer alternative. Everything earns its place.

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 delete tool with two fully documented parameters, required confirmation, and destructive annotations, the description covers all essential operational aspects: scope, irreversibility, and alternative behavior. No output schema is expected for a delete operation, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning about confirm_name beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Удаляет') and names the resource ('дело'), then enumerates exactly what is deleted: accounts, transactions, counterparties, warehouse, budgets, and documents. It also explicitly contrasts itself with businesses_save with archived=true, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 description provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition: to simply remove the business from the list, use businesses_save with archived=true instead. It also signals that the operation is irreversible, which is essential usage guidance for a destructive action.

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