Отклонить заказ Telegram Stars

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful precondition (the order must be in 'Review' status), which is useful. But as a state-changing action, it omits key consequences: what status results from rejection, whether the action is reversible/final, and any effects on the order flow or payload. With zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence beginning with the action verb, with zero filler. It is efficient and well-structured for what it says. Its brevity is not a defect in structure but reflects the thinness of substance, which is penalized under other dimensions rather than here.

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?

Structurally the tool is minimal — one required parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, no enums — so the bar for completeness is lower. The description adequately states the action and the single applicability condition. However, for an irreversible-feeling reject action it omits the outcome and whether the rejection is final, leaving the agent to guess post-call behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% — the single required `id` parameter is already documented as 'Идентификатор заказа'. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, nor any format or provenance expectations for the id.

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 names a specific verb (Отменяет — cancels), a resource (заказ — order), and a scope constraint (only orders in 'Review' status). This distinguishes it from siblings like wata_dg_stars_order_confirm and wata_transaction_refund. However, there is a minor terminology mismatch: the title says 'Отклонить' (reject) while the description says 'Отменяет' (cancel), which could blur the tool's exact semantics. Purpose is clear but slightly muddied by the inconsistent action wording.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided — there is no statement of when to use this over the confirm sibling, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the 'Review' status constraint, which hints at applicability but says nothing about what to do for orders in other statuses or when wata_transaction_refund would be the better choice. The agent is left to infer selection logic entirely.

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