Настройки терминала и вебхуков

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation behavior, partial-update semantics, and the critical 10-second response requirement for sendPrePayWebhook, including the consequence that the transaction will be rejected if the server does not respond. It does not mention permissions or response format, but the most operationally significant behavior is surfaced.

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 three sentences with three distinct jobs: state the purpose, give usage guidance, and issue a critical warning. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides purpose, usage guidance, and a high-risk behavioral warning. It does not describe the response shape or auth prerequisites, but for a partial-update settings tool with a fully documented schema, the invocation guidance is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has meaning in the input schema. The description adds partial-update semantics and reinforces the sendPrePayWebhook timeout, but it does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Меняет' — changes) with a clear resource ('настройки боевого терминала') and enumerates concrete fields: webhook URL, success and error pages, and notification flags. It also states the distinguishing purpose — 'основной способ подключить приём вебхуков' — which separates it from sibling getters like wata_terminal_get, wata_terminals_list, and wata_terminal_test.

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 explicitly tells the agent this is the primary way to enable webhook reception and instructs to pass only fields that need changing, which is valuable partial-update guidance. It does not name exclusions or direct alternatives, but the context is clear enough to choose this tool over related terminal and webhook siblings.

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