Погасить долг

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

The description discloses important side effects beyond annotations: full payment confirms the operation, partial payment creates a new actual payment operation and reduces the planned balance, warehouse operations cannot be partially settled without hanging stock, and currency must match. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior and consequences.

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 compact and front-loaded: primary purpose first, then behavioral rules, then constraints. Every sentence adds necessary operational information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 financial mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors, constraints, and side effects needed to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain: it does not state what happens on overpayment, whether multiple partial payments are allowed, or what the response looks like, but these are secondary to the core usage.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'amount' is explained as full vs partial, 'operation_id' is clarified as the planned operation/debt, and 'account_id' gets the currency-matching constraint. This goes beyond the schema without needing to restate every parameter.

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 opens with 'Оплата по плановой операции' — a specific verb ('pay') and resource ('planned operation') — and then clarifies the tool's role as settling debt. It distinguishes itself from the sibling operations_confirm by stating that full payment equals confirmation, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for paying planned operations, with full payment acting as confirmation and partial payment reducing the planned balance. It also provides exclusions and constraints: warehouse-item operations can only be settled fully, and the payment account must match the operation's currency. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the behavioral guidance is strong.

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