user_autopayment_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about reversibility, required permissions, or the preview/confirm-gated behavior of this non-GET operation. The one genuinely important behavioral fact — that without confirm:true in rw mode only a request preview is returned — lives in the schema, not here. Deletion is implied only by the word DELETE.

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?

It is short and front-loads the method and path, which is good, but two of the four lines ('Тег: Пользователи', 'Спека: user') are API-catalog metadata that convey nothing to an agent choosing or invoking the tool.

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 destructive endpoint with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum flag that confirmation is required and that the action is irreversible. Those gaps are real, and the only reason this is not a 1 is that the schema partially covers the confirm/preview contract.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there (confirm's preview semantics and user_id's admin-acts-on-behalf meaning). The description adds no parameter detail of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: 'DELETE /user/autopayment' plus the Russian gloss 'Удалить автоплатежи пользователя' (delete the user's autopayments). An agent can tell it destroys autopayment records. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling user_autopayment_get beyond the verb, and the 'Тег/Спека' lines add no purpose information.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. user_autopayment_get to inspect before deleting, or the admin-side admin_user_payment_put paths). The only routing signal is the name and HTTP verb, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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