tochka_subscription_status_set

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

The description indicates a mutation ('set status', 'cancel'), consistent with the annotation `openWorldHint: true`. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether cancellation triggers notifications, refunds, or is reversible), which would be valuable given the open world hint.

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?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for arguments), but it efficiently conveys the key information without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool is part of a subscription management suite and has a sibling 'tochka_subscription_status' (likely for reading), the description covers the basic action and required parameters. However, it lacks prerequisites, return value details (output schema exists but not described), and behavioral context for a mutation with side effects.

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 0%, so the description bears full burden. It explains `operation_id` as 'Subscription operation ID' and notes `status` only allows 'Cancelled'. While helpful, it adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's `const` constraint. For a low-coverage scenario, this is adequate but not rich.

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 the tool sets subscription status and explicitly notes it cancels the subscription. The verb 'Set' and resource 'subscription status' are clear, but it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tochka_subscription_status' (read-only) or 'tochka_subscription_charge'.

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 implies usage for cancellation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'tochka_subscription_create' or 'tochka_subscription_charge'. It assumes the agent knows the subscription lifecycle, leaving the condition (e.g., subscription must be active) unstated.

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