Создать платёжную ссылку через кабинет

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose an important behavioral/authorization trait — creation is done on behalf of the cabinet without a terminal JWT token. However, it does not mention idempotency, response shape, side effects beyond creation, or error behavior, which remain gaps.

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: it states the core action first, then the key context, then the alternative tool. Every sentence adds necessary value and there is no filler or redundant repetition of the name or schema.

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 adequately covers purpose and use-case selection, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out important operational context such as what the tool returns, error/condition cases, and redemption behavior. It is sufficient but not fully complete for an agent that needs to interpret the result.

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 75%, so the input schema already documents most parameters. The description adds contextual meaning for terminalId by explaining that the terminal must be explicit when no JWT token is available, but it adds little or nothing for amount, currency, expiration, redirects, and other optional fields.

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 verb and resource ('Создаёт платёжную ссылку от имени кабинета') and clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling wata_acq_link_create. It also explains the important nuance that no terminal JWT token is required, 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 says when this tool is appropriate ('когда токен ещё не выпущен') and gives a direct when-not instruction: if integrating payment acceptance into your service, use wata_acq_link_create instead. This leaves little room for incorrect tool selection.

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