Заказ на покупку Telegram Stars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important trait: the order may enter Review status and then requires explicit confirmation or rejection. However, it does not mention what the tool returns on success, any side effects, or error conditions. The Review behavior is useful but the description remains thin on other behavioral aspects.

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 concise: two short sentences that front-load the core action ('Creates an order') and then add the key behavioral note about Review status. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 description covers the essential workflow (creation and possible Review status) and points to follow-up tools, which is helpful. However, it lacks information about the response format, which is not provided by an output schema, and the payload structure is left vague (open additionalProperties). For a creation tool with a nested object, more details on expected return values or payload structure would improve completeness.

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 description for the payload states 'Recipient, number of stars, your orderId,' which provides basic meaning for the parameter. The tool description adds nothing beyond this. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an order for buying stars.' It distinguishes this creation action from siblings like confirm, reject, and get by the act of creation itself. The mention of the Review status adds context without blurring the primary purpose.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to create a new order) and explicitly names the follow-up actions: if the order enters Review status, use wata_dg_stars_order_confirm or wata_dg_stars_order_reject. While it doesn't contrast with non-creation tools explicitly, the guidance about the Review status is a clear usage instruction.

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