Настроить диалог

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses a non-obvious side effect: switching to bot mode returns the conversation to the scenario and removes the operator. It also clarifies a boundary—blocking is handled by the platform and only displayed here. This adds behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying a common misconception about blocking. Every word contributes.

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 settings-mutation tool with six parameters, the description covers purpose, the key mode side effect, and an explicit limitation, while annotations cover read-only/destructive/idempotent traits. It omits only minor details like response shape, acceptable because there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description mostly restates the schema's parameter purposes (mode, AI, tags, pinning) and adds only a small extra nuance about the bot-mode side effect. That does not elevate it above the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb 'Меняет' and enumerates exactly which dialog settings are affected: mode (bot/operator), AI answering, tags, pinning. This clearly separates it from sibling dialog tools like dialogs_delete or dialogs_reply, which operate on the dialog itself or its messages.

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 gives a concrete effect ('Перевод в режим bot возвращает разговор сценарию и снимает оператора') that helps an agent understand when to set mode=bot, and it explicitly states a non-goal: 'Заблокировать собеседника отсюда нельзя'. It names no alternative tools for the same configuration, but the usage context is clear.

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