Билет или маршрутная квитанция в файл

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

The description discloses valuable behavioral details beyond what annotations provide: the default output directory, 0600 file permissions due to personal passport data, the fact that existing files are not overwritten, and the overwrite=True opt-in. It also explains output structure differences between rail and air bookings.

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 dense: action, default path, source of order_id, vertical-specific output, file permissions, and overwrite behavior. Every sentence contributes operational value and none of it needlessly repeats the title.

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 file-creation tool with only one required parameter, an output schema, and non-destructive safety behavior, the description covers all essential invocation concerns: input provenance, output format, default location, permission handling, and overwrite semantics. No critical operational gap is apparent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameters, and it largely succeeds: order_id provenance is given, overwrite behavior is explicitly described, and the default save path clarifies the save_to parameter. However, save_to is only implicitly described through the default path, and it is not fully clear whether it is a directory or a file path.

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 uses a specific verb ('Сохранить') and a specific resource ('билет в файл'), and clarifies the supported verticals: railway tickets and flight route receipts. It establishes the tool's scope well, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from related sibling tools such as ticket_qr or payment_receipt.

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 clearly tells an agent how to source the required order_id: from orders('путешествия'), train_book(), or flight_book(). It also explains that the tool auto-detects the vertical. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the sourcing guidance is strong enough for correct invocation.

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