Сохранить заготовку ответа

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

The annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that the tool branches between create and update semantics and explains what happens if title is omitted, which adds useful behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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 compact sentences deliver the core behavior and the most important parameter nuance without wasted words. The create/edit distinction is front-loaded, and the title guidance is succinctly explained.

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?

The description, combined with full schema parameter documentation, covers the essential decisions: whether to create or edit, how to identify the template, and what happens if title is missing. There is no output schema and no mention of return values, but for a simple save operation this is acceptable.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining that the title is needed to invoke the template later and that omitting it results in an unnamed list entry, and by tying the reply parameter to the create/edit distinction.

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 the tool's core behavior: without the reply parameter it creates a new reply template, and with it edits an existing one. It names the resource (заготовка ответа) and distinguishes the two operational modes, which differentiates it from siblings like replies_list and replies_delete.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: omit reply to create a new template, provide reply to edit an existing one. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for the agent to choose the correct invocation.

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