user_service_order_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. 'PUT' implies a mutation, but no permission requirements, side effects, confirm/preview workflow, or reversibility are described in the description itself. The useful confirmation detail about preview behavior lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

Very short with no filler, but what it contains is endpoint metadata rather than front-loaded task information. It is efficient yet under-informative; brevity here reflects sparse content rather than strong editing.

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 and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the confirm-required write flow, what registration does to existing state, or what the caller should expect, leaving the agent reliant on schema fields alone.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (body.service_id, confirm, user_id) including the confirm preview semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives an HTTP verb and path ('PUT /service/order') plus a Russian gloss ('Регистрация услуги' = service registration), which conveys the resource and action. But it is terse boilerplate and does not distinguish this endpoint from the closely-named siblings user_service_order_get or admin_service_order_put beyond the naming convention. Purpose is identifiable but minimally articulated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as user_service_get, user_service_change_post, or admin_service_order_put. The tag ('Услуги') and spec ('user') are routing metadata, not usage conditions. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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