Удалить контрагента

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: deletion will be refused if references exist, and archiving is the fallback. This helps the agent anticipate failure and choose the correct path. 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 sentences, no filler. The primary operation is stated first, and the critical exception and workaround are packed into the second sentence without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter destructive action, this description is complete: it states the operation, the failure condition, and the recommended alternative. The output schema is absent, but the failure behavior is disclosed, which is the main risk for this tool.

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%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not need to add parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Удаляет контрагента' (deletes a counterparty). It also distinguishes this tool from counterparties_save by describing the conditional refusal and the archiving workaround, so an agent can distinguish them.

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 explicitly states when deletion works, when it will be refused (if operations or documents reference the counterparty), and names the exact alternative: counterparties_save with archived=true. This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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