Экспресс: подтвердить заявку

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

While annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, the description adds important context: it triggers a courier search and marks the delivery as actually ordered. It also discloses error conditions (409 with specific codes) and recovery steps, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the main action and consequence in the first sentence, then provides essential operational and error-handling details. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutating action with potential 409 errors, the description adequately covers preconditions, version source, and error recovery. It lacks an explicit description of the return value, but since there is no output schema, the description still provides enough context for correct invocation in the broader flow of express_* tools.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra value by clarifying that the version is derived from express_get_claim, reinforcing the schema's provenance guidance for claim_id. This goes beyond simply repeating schema info.

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 action: confirms a claim after successful evaluation (status ready_for_approval) and initiates courier search, making the delivery actually ordered. It specifies the resource (claim) and the specific context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like express_cancel_claim or express_create_claim.

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 provides clear usage context: it is meant for claims already in ready_for_approval status, and it instructs that the version should be taken from express_get_claim. It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools to avoid, but the required status and error handling imply when it is appropriate. This is slightly above baseline but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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