make_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains why BOM matters (correct Cyrillic display in Excel) — context the schema's bare boolean does not provide — but says nothing about overwriting existing files at `path`, encoding, or failure behavior for a tool that writes to disk.

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 no filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the routing caveat comes last. Efficient, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.

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 5-parameter file-writing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description covers too little — no overwrite/permission semantics, no return value, and three parameters entirely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses two of five parameters conceptually (delimiter, bom via "настраиваемым разделителем и BOM") and explains neither `columns` ordering semantics, `rows` shape, nor the expected `path` format.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact ("Создаёт CSV") plus two distinguishing capabilities: configurable delimiter and BOM. The closing clause implicitly separates it from make_xlsx ("когда Excel не нужен"), though it never names the sibling tool.

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?

"Для простых выгрузок, когда Excel не нужен" gives a usable when-to-use condition and an implied when-not (if you need Excel formatting, this is the wrong tool). The gap is that make_xlsx/make_docx are never named, so the agent must infer the alternative from the sibling list alone.

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