Подтвердить плановую операцию

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it affects balances and statistics, and related warehouse items are written off. It clarifies that despite destructiveHint=false, the write-off is an intended business consequence. However, it does not warn about the non-idempotent risk of double-confirmation even though idempotentHint=false, leaving a small transparency gap.

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 sentences with no filler: the core action and consequences are front-loaded, followed by a concise usage guardrail. Every sentence earns its place, and the temporal warning is placed efficiently at the end.

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 state-changing tool with moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential semantics: what changes, what side effects occur, and when not to call it. Minor gaps are the lack of any indication of return value/confirmation behavior and no idempotency warning, but the core is well covered.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description references 'плановая операция' which maps to operation_id, but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 transformative verb ('Переводит плановую операцию в фактическую') and clearly identifies the resource: planned operations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like operations_save, operations_delete, and operations_settle by specifying the unique state transition (planned → actual) and its consequences.

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 an explicit when-not instruction: future plans should not be confirmed until their date arrives. This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for those future-plan cases, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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