Закрыть платёжную ссылку

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect (prevents further payments) and the requirement to pass certain fields. However, it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or any side effects beyond closure, which are relevant for a mutation with no annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the parameter sourcing requirement and the alternative tool. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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 simple close operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: purpose, required data sources, and the alternative for creation. It lacks details about response format or error behavior, but these are not critical given the simple nature of the operation.

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% and each parameter description already says 'from wata_link_get'. The tool description repeats this guidance but adds no new information about parameter meaning or format. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 ('closes a payment link') with a clear consequence ('so it can no longer be paid'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that creation is done via wata_acq_link_create, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to retrieve parameters from wata_link_get and clarifies that creation uses wata_acq_link_create, effectively routing the agent to the right tool for different operations. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you want to close a link', but that is implied by the purpose and the contrast with creation.

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