Применить счета расчётов к существующему банковскому документу

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

Beyond the annotations (write, openWorld, non-destructive), it discloses substantive behavior: the mandatory control read validates contract, both accounts, payment amounts, tax and analytics, while recomputed rate/multiplicity/settlement amount are deliberately not compared. It also discloses failure modes (currency units with a different document currency unsupported, rate not guessed, multiple lines rejected) and idempotency handling (preview bound to payload/document/counterparty/contract, unknown held without re-writing). This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 action, the state requirement and the concurrency token are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence encodes a distinct constraint rather than filler. It is dense and somewhat run-on, and could be split into short bullet-like clauses for faster parsing, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers prerequisites, validation behavior, unsupported cases, preview/idempotency semantics and follow-up steps. An agent has everything needed to decide whether it may call this and what will happen.

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 only 33%, so the description carries real weight and does explain side, contractRef, counterpartyRef semantics and expectedDataVersion precisely. However, it leaves entitySet and confirm unexplained, and ref is only implied as the target document, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: applies inherited settlement/advance accounts and a chosen contract to an existing UNPOSTED bank document. It names the exact state requirement (НЕПРОВЕДЁННЫЙ) and the concurrency token (expectedDataVersion/If-Match), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like set_settlement_settings or align_bank_payment_amounts.

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?

It gives concrete preconditions and prohibitions: explicit side supplier/customer is mandatory including the 'Прочее' contract, counterpartyRef only fills a null ref, and replacing a filled counterparty or matching by name/contract is forbidden. It also notes that unposting and posting happen through separate calls, steering the agent away from expecting this tool to post. It does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead for those steps, so it falls just short of a 5.

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