Подтвердить автосеттлмент (шаг 2)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosureubs, but it only restates the confirmation action. It does not mention that the confirmation likely applies a pending change, whether it is idempotent, what happens with an invalid code, or any side effects beyond the generic 'изменение правил'.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose without padding. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it arguably sacrifices valuable context for brevity.

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 two-parameter confirmation step, the title and schema already convey the step-2 nature and required credentialTokenId. Still, the description alone leaves out the prerequisite initiate step and any result/behavior details, making it minimally adequate rather than 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%, and both parameters already have descriptive schema entries: 'Код подтверждения' and 'credentialTokenId из ответа на шаг 1'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so 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?

The description states a specific action ('Подтверждает изменение правил автоматического вывода средств') with a clear resource: autosettlement rules. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with wata_wallet_autosettlement_initiate beyond the title's 'шаг 2'.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the title says 'шаг 2' and the credentialTokenId parameter is described as coming from the step 1 response, which signals a two-step flow. However, the description itself gives no direct guidance such as 'use after wata_wallet_autosettlement_initiate' or exclusions.

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