create_addfunds_invoice

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'ДЕНЬГИ: создаёт реальный инвойс' adds meaningful context about the real financial impact. It warns that this is not a dry run or estimate, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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 two short, purposeful sentences. The first states the action and endpoint, and the second provides a clear financial warning. No filler or redundant detail is present.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema documentation, the description supplies the key missing context: this action creates a real money invoice. It does not explain the post-invoice flow, but that is not necessary given the simple input schema and no output schema requirement.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both amount and confirm. The description only loosely references the amount ('на указанную сумму') and does not add meaning about the confirm flag or amount formatting beyond the schema.

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 action ('Создать инвойс') and the specific purpose (replenishment of credit balance), and explicitly says it creates a real invoice. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling billing tools like generate_due_invoice, but the 'addfunds' scope makes the purpose clear.

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 when a credit balance top-up invoice is needed, but gives no guidance about when to prefer this over related tools such as generate_due_invoice, apply_credit, or mass_pay. There is no exclusionary or alternative routing information.

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