Возврат через публичный API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explicitly warns that this is an irreversible monetary operation, notes that currency is inherited from the original transaction, details amount validation, and states a terminal product restriction. It does not describe response/return behavior, but the critical irreversible nature and operational constraints are clear.

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 with a critical warning: 'НЕОБРАТИМАЯ ДЕНЕЖНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ'. Each sentence covers a distinct requirement or constraint; there is minimal filler. It could slightly over-explain constraints already implied by the schema, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 3-required-parameter mutation without output schema, the description gives enough operational context to execute correctly: required fields, constraints, irreversible flag, and a restriction. It still lacks what happens as result or how to identify the refunded transaction afterward, and it fails to connect to related refund endpoints, making it complete for calling safely but not fully complete for follow-up steps.

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?

Since the schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that currency is taken from the original transaction, that the amount must not exceed the available balance, and that only two fields are required in practice. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Сумма возврата'.

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 title 'Возврат через публичный API' and description clearly identify this as a refund operation that creates a refund using original transaction ID and amount. The verb/resource relationship is specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wata_transaction_refund, which also appears to handle refunds.

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 parameter constraints and a terminal type restriction, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wata_transaction_refund. There is no explicit when/when-not statement regarding sibling tools, so the usage context is mostly unaddressed.

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