Создать списание с расчётного счёта

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world; the description adds substantive traits: the document is created НЕПРОВЕДЁННЫЙ, operationKind is mandatory and must not be guessed, and the confirm/operationId idempotency loop is described. Missing are permission or side-effect notes (e.g. whether the writeoff affects balances only after posting), but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the document type, then the unposted constraint, then the mandatory operation kind, then the settlement rule. The trailing fragment 'dry-run/confirm' is telegraphic and less structured than the rest, but overall there is little waste.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the matters that matter: unposted state, mandatory operation kind, the preview-to-confirm loop, and the settlement breakdown rule. It leaves the relative positioning against other money-write siblings (payout order, cash payment) implicit, which is the main residual gap.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: operationKind must not be guessed and is exemplified, and contractRef drives derivation of the settlement account from the contract settings, visible in preview (usually 60). That is real guidance the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: creates a «Списание с расчётного счёта» document (outgoing bank payment), and immediately scopes it as unposted. It also names the sibling that continues the flow (post_document), so an agent can place it in a pipeline without opening the schema.

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?

Clear when-to-use: unposted writeoff, posting delegated to post_document, and the dry-run/confirm protocol is spelled out. It also gives the condition for filling the settlement breakdown (supplier payment with a contract). It stops short of distinguishing this from nearby siblings such as create_payout_order or create_cash_payment, which an agent could plausibly confuse.

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