Платформа: подтвердить оффер

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it creates an order, returns a request_id, and can fail with 400 if the offer is expired. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each adding necessary information: purpose, return value and related tools, and a critical error condition. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, how to use that return value, and when it might fail. The annotations cover idempotency and read-only hints, so nothing critical is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage of the only parameter (offer_id) with a description tying it to platform_create_offers. The description adds extra semantic context: the offer must not be expired and should be the selected one, reinforcing the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Бронирует выбранный оффер — СОЗДАЁТ заказ' (books the selected offer — creates an order). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like platform_create_offers (which creates offers) and platform_get_request (which reads requests).

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?

It provides clear usage context: it is used after receiving an offer from platform_create_offers, and the resulting request_id is meant to be used with platform_get_request, platform_request_history, and platform_cancel_request. It also mentions a precondition (offer not expired). No explicit exclusions for when not to use it, but the workflow is well implied.

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