run_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the action is irreversible and that it will stop and wait for a human – important behavioral traits for an agent. However, it doesn't detail other side effects or what 'wait for a human' entails beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasteful words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral warning follows immediately. Everything present earns its place.

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 tool with one simple required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough for correct invocation: what it does, that it is irreversible, and that human intervention is expected. It could optionally mention what the tool returns, but that is not critical for a step-execution tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter order_id is self-explanatory (a string identifier for the order). The description mentions 'заказа', indirectly tying order_id to the order. Yet it adds no detail on format, meaning, or how to obtain the ID.

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 states a specific action ('Выполнить следующий шаг заказа' – execute the next step of the order) and resource ('заказа' – order), plus the gateway context. This distinguishes it from siblings like order_status (status query) and create_order (order creation) without ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where sibling tools like pending_confirmations or order_status would be more appropriate.

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