Оплата/обновление заявки на домен

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write operation is known. The description adds that the update sets a payment source, which is mildly informative, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or authorization requirements beyond what the annotations already imply.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and enumerates the payment source options. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters with conditional requirements, but the input schema covers these thoroughly (100% coverage). The description provides enough context to understand the operation's purpose, and the schema handles parameter semantics. However, it does not mention return values or post-update effects, and the operation's side effects are not fully elaborated.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters, including conditional requirements. The description only repeats the enum values already present in the schema (use, invoice, free, bonus) and their meanings, adding no new semantic information beyond the input 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 a specific action ('Обновляет заявку') on a specific resource ('на регистрацию/продление/трансфер') and conveys the purpose of setting a payment source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_domain_request or get_domain_request.

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 the use case: updating a domain request's payment method for registration, renewal, or transfer. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_domain_request), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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