Create split payment

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds the critical real-world consequence 'MOVES REAL MONEY — irreversible.' This is valuable risk disclosure that strongly reinforces the destructive nature of the operation and is not redundant with the annotations.

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 just two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a necessary financial warning. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the 6-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema, the description supplies the essential non-schema context: marketplace purpose, product prerequisite, and financial irreversibility. It is complete for an agent to select and safely invoke the 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, although it alludes to the 'transfers' parameter via 'partner shops.' The schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a split payment for marketplaces' and specifies the exact behavior: distributing funds among partner shops. This distinguishes it from the sibling create_payment tool and other payment operations.

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 provides clear usage context by indicating the marketplace use case and the hard prerequisite 'Requires the YooKassa-for-platforms product.' It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the marketplace scoping effectively tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus create_payment.

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