Удалить карточку склада

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral constraint: deletion is blocked for cards referenced in operations, and it explains the rationale. This adds real context the annotations alone do not provide, though it does not cover side effects like reversibility, which destructiveHint already implies.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by the critical limitation and the alternative path. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and every sentence 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 destructive two-parameter mutation with a fully described schema, the description covers the main failure mode and the correct fallback action. No output schema exists, but this simple call does not require return-value detail to be invoked correctly.

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 (item and business) already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Удаляет товар или услугу' (deletes a product or service). It also clearly differentiates deletion from archiving by mentioning warehouse_save with archived=true, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling.

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 gives a usage condition: a card used in any operation cannot be deleted, because stock history would lose its foundation. It then points to the correct alternative — archive via warehouse_save with archived=true — making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use decision explicit.

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