Отключить обучающие истории

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('turns off') without revealing consequences such as whether the change is reversible, whether it affects only the current user or all users, or if there are any side effects. This ambiguity leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that uses zero wasted words. It conveys the essential action and scope efficiently 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps about the scope and reversibility of the action. The agent might need to know whether the disable is persistent and whether it applies to the current user's cabinet globally. The description could be more explicit about these aspects, though the tool remains usable with the current level of detail.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since no additional parameter information is needed.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Выключает' - turns off) on a specific resource ('баннеры-истории' - story banners) within a specific context ('в интерфейсе кабинета' - in the cabinet interface). It uniquely identifies the tool's function and is easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which deal with story banners.

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 implies when to use the tool (when the user wants to disable story banners) but does not explicitly state usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. There are no alternative tools for this action, so guidance on when not to use it is minimal. The context is clear enough for a simple toggle, but it lacks any explicit direction.

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