Оплата брони

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

Beyond annotations that already signal destructive/mutating behavior, the description actually adds critical context: real funds can move, a payment refusal appears without user elicitation, the payment token is available only once, and failed/unconfirmed outcomes must be checked carefully. This is substantial behavioral disclosure that helps the agent act safely.

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 but not bloated: every sentence carries an actionable instruction or warning. Important safety-relevant points are placed early, and each paragraph addresses a separate concern without unnecessary repetition.

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 payment tool of moderate complexity, the description covers the required parameters, the confirmation flow, the failure semantics, the precaution around the token, and the force retry logic. The output schema exists, so the return value is already specified; no essential decision or execution context is missing.

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?

While the schema provides 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining where to get order_id, amount, and nfs_payment_token, what account_id defaults to, and what force=True means. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic context beyond its name and type.

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: paying for a booked ticket, and highlights that real money is involved. It distinguishes this tool from booking, cancellation, and QR siblings by emphasizing the actual payment step.

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 gives explicit preconditions: use data from cinema_book(), do not ask for textual confirmation, the tool itself shows a confirmation button, and force=True should only be used after verifying no money has left the account. This is strong operational guidance for when and how to invoke the tool.

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