Экспресс: создать заявку

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

The description fully discloses the non-obvious lifecycle: claim is not immediately active, status passes through new → estimating → ready_for_approval, and confirmation is required. It also explains idempotency semantics tied to request_id, complementing the idempotentHint=false annotation by clarifying the conditional behavior. No annotation contradictions.

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 four sentences long, with the critical 'ВАЖНО' warning up front. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, workflow, return fields, and idempotency. No filler or 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 complex tool with 14 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: return fields (id, status, version, route_points, pricing, created_ts), the estimation/confirmation workflow, and idempotency. Parameter construction is not described but schema satisfies that need.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters, including auto_accept and request_id. The description reiterates these but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Создаёт заявку на экспресс-доставку' (creates an express delivery claim), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by stating that the claim must be confirmed via express_accept_claim or auto_accept=true, clearly situating this as the creation step in the workflow.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: the claim goes through estimation and needs subsequent confirmation via express_accept_claim, or the agent can pass auto_accept=true. This implies when to use this tool versus the acceptance tool, though it doesn't mention how to choose between this and pricing/sibling tools.

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