Создать или изменить дело

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the caller becomes the owner on creation, updates are partial, and the archived flag can move a business to or from the archive. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences present the core create/update condition first, then the partial-update rule. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or 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 13-parameter mutation with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation decisions: create vs update, ownership implication, and partial-update semantics. It does not describe the response format or error conditions, but the schema documents all parameter meanings and annotations cover the mutation profile.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds cross-parameter guidance: only pass fields that need changing, and the business field determines create-vs-update. This reinforces and extends the schema hints, particularly for partial updates.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it creates a new business when no business identifier is provided and updates an existing one when it is. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like businesses_list, businesses_get, and businesses_delete by focusing on create/update behavior.

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 provides explicit conditions: omit the business field to create, include it to update, and send only the fields to change. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as businesses_delete for deletion, but the create/update distinction is clearly actionable.

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