Подтверждение платежа (второй фактор)

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that this operation continues a stored attempt, does not create a new payment, cannot double-charge, and does not advance state on an incorrect code. It also discloses that the code is never logged and that the final outcome is visible via payment_status(attempt_id). These are highly valuable behavioral details. No contradiction with the annotations was found.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the purpose and then covering the key behavioral guarantees. There are sentences that could be tightened, but the extra length is justified because it explains a bank payment flow, retry semantics, and side effects. Overall, it is well-organized and efficient for its complexity.

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 destructive banking operation, the description covers the trigger condition, the origin and meaning of both parameters, the behavior on wrong and valid codes, the resend path, and the follow-up status-checking tool. With an output schema present, omitted return-value details are not a concern. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does clarify that attempt_id comes from the initiating transfer/pay_bill response and that otp is the SMS/push code. However, the schema marks otp as optional with an empty default while the description says to pass it as a required confirmation code, leaving a minor semantic mismatch. Still, the description compensates meaningfully for the schema 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 and unambiguous purpose: confirming a payment that the bank holds at WAITING_CONFIRMATION via a second factor. It also explicitly differentiates itself from confirm_otp, which handles login confirmation, making the tool distinguishable from the large sibling set. This is a strongly clear and purpose-oriented description.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: call this tool when transfer, transfer_requisites, or pay_bill return a “ТРЕБУЕТСЯ ПОДТВЕРЖДЕНИЕ” response. It also states exactly when not to use confirm_otp and provides a full workflow: ask for the SMS/push code, take attempt_id from the previous response, and pass otp. Guidance for retrying, resending, and checking status is also included.

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