user_service_change_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: only 'POST' in the path hints at a mutation. It does not say that changing a tariff has billing/cost consequences, whether it prorates, whether it is reversible, or that a confirm flag gates execution (that hint lives only in the schema).

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 endpoint, but two of the four lines ('Тег: Услуги пользователей', 'Спека: user') are internal metadata that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so not every element earns its place.

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 mutation endpoint with a nested body object, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description should explain side effects and the confirm-gating flow; instead it is silent. The high schema coverage of parameters prevents a 1, but an agent lacks the behavioral picture needed to call this safely.

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%, including titles for service_id/user_service_id and an explicit description of confirm's preview behavior, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 correct.

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 phrase 'Сменить тариф' (change tariff) goes slightly beyond the name/path by naming the resource as a tariff, so an agent can tell it is not a generic service edit. However, it is essentially a restatement of the endpoint '/user/service/change' plus boilerplate tag/spec lines, with no mention of what fields are changed or how it differs from near-duplicates like admin_user_service_change_post.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to any alternative such as admin_user_service_change_post or user_service_order_put. Nothing in the text tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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