Подтвердить заказ Telegram Stars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the prerequisite that the order must be in Review status, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the confirmation is irreversible), auth requirements, or what happens on failure. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and the critical condition (Review status). There is zero waste, and every word 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the action and a key prerequisite, but it does not disclose any other operational details such as response format, error conditions, or whether the action is reversible. Given the lack of annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without going further.

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 ('Confirms an order') and the condition (in Review status), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reject (opposite action) and get (read-only). However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage when an order is in Review status, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., what to do if the order is not in Review). It lacks the 'use this instead of X' direction that would earn a 3 or higher.

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