create_payment_plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, side effects, error handling, or what happens upon success (e.g., if a file is generated or database updated). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that states the action and resource. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning it's for Webasyst. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified for clarity.

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 tool that creates a payment plugin with 3 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and what to expect after invocation, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (plugin_name, plugin_title, webasyst_path) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the plugin is for payments and located under 'wa-plugins/payment/', which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 'Создать плагин оплаты (wa-plugins/payment/)' specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'payment plugin' with a path hint, making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like create_shipping_plugin or create_shop_plugin, leaving the scope vague regarding what makes a payment plugin distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_shipping_plugin or create_plugin_structure. The description implies usage for creating payment plugins but offers no context on prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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