Возврат ЖД-билета

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

The description correctly discloses an important behavior: the refund is irreversible and the seat returns to sale. However, the annotation destructiveHint=false directly contradicts this "irreversible" claim. This is an Annotation Contradiction and makes the risk signal unreliable for the agent.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: irreversibility, confirm workflow, and ticket_ids semantics. There is no filler material or repetition of schema details.

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 mutation-style tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what happens without confirmation, the irreversible side effect, and the meaning of the optional ticket_ids parameter. The output schema is available, so return-value details are not required.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates for two of three parameters: confirm is explained as the flag that switches between calculation-only and actual refund, and ticket_ids is explained as optional-with-empty-means-all behavior. order_id is not explicitly described, but it is required and self-explanatory.

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 — 'ВОЗВРАТ ЖД-билета' — and adds meaningful behavioral detail, so an agent knows this is the railway ticket refund tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the action and subject are specific enough to prevent confusion.

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 a strong usage protocol: without confirm=True the tool only computes and shows the refund calculation, and the agent must show that to the user before calling with confirm=True. It also clarifies that an empty ticket_ids means all refundable tickets in the order are returned.

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