Оплата ЖД-брони

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the real-money confirmation dialog, the card_id-dependent failure behavior, the requirement for user elicitation, that the amount comes from the order and not an argument, and the exact meaning of force=True. This is substantially more transparent than the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded and comma-separated hard with concrete, security-sensitive details. It is longer than minimal, but every paragraph earns its place: confirmation UI, card selection flow, amount source, and force semantics. Minor redundancy appears in sometimes repeated warnings about card_id and imperatives, which keeps it just shy of 5.

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 description covers confirmation, absence of card_id, refusal behavior, buttoned elicitation, source of the amount, and the force parameter. The output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return fields. The tool is fully safe in operational decisions despite 0% schema coverage for parameters.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well: it explains card_id (without it the tool returns a payment card list; only card_id is accepted), order_id as the existing booking/order, and force=True as a conditional explicit retry. It could be stronger by explicitly stating that order_id must come from train_book(), but it nonetheless carries the param meanings.

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 'ОПЛАТИТЬ бронь поезда', naming a specific verb, resource, and operation. The 'РЕАЛЬНЫЕ ДЕНЬГИ' warning and the explicit link to train_book() make the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from siblings like train_book, train_refund, pay_bill, and transfer.

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 direct instructions: the tool itself shows a confirmation button, so the agent should not ask a textual yes/no; a card_id is required and the flow for obtain cards is described; force=True is restricted to uncertain outcomes after an in-app check. It does not explicitly route away from sibling payment tools, but its coupling to train_book and the condition context make the intended usage clear.

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