Удалить операцию

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it explicitly states the operation cannot be undone, that account balances will be recalculated immediately, and that if the operation is part of a recurring series, only that one instance is deleted. This gives the agent a much clearer picture of side effects and behavioral nuances.

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 concise sentences, each carrying meaningful information: the action, the irreversibility and recalculation side effect, and the recurring-series behavior. The core action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 destructive operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for safe invocation. It covers what happens, what cannot be undone, what side effects occur, and a subtle edge case involving recurring series. The remaining details, such as exact response format, are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for both 'operation_id' and 'business'. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does slightly reinforce that 'operation_id' targets a single operation, but it does not clarify formats or defaults beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Удаляет операцию', a direct verb plus resource that clearly states the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like operations_list, operations_save, or operations_confirm because it explicitly says 'deletes'. The scope is unambiguous: the tool deletes an operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource: use this tool when you need to delete an operation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, nor any stated preconditions or caveats such as requiring confirmation before deleting. The information about irreversibility helps, but it is not phrased as usage guidance.

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