Сменить статус заказа

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, but the description adds meaningful specifics: cancellation is irreversible from the connector side and can only be reversed in the accounting system. It also adds the write-mode requirement, giving the agent important operational context beyond the 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences add essential prerequisite and risk information without 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite, destructive irreversibility, and core required parameters. Missing pieces include filial_code semantics and any indication of return behavior, which is more salient because there is no output schema, but the core invocation details are sufficiently clear.

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 67%, covering deal_id and status. The description enriches status semantics by mapping to business actions ('провести, отменить, вернуть в работу'), but it does not explain filial_code, which remains undocumented in both schema and description. The value syntax for statuses is already in 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Меняет статус существующего заказа' and enumerates the status kinds. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like smartup_order_create or smartup_order_note, which have different purposes.

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 context: it is for changing statuses of existing orders, and it discloses a prerequisite ('Требует включённого режима записи'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling context makes the intended use obvious.

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