Изменить автосеттлмент (шаг 1)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the most important trait: this call only creates a request and requires a confirmation code, meaning the change is not directly applied. It stops short of describing pending-state behavior, whether existing rules are replaced, or what the response contains, but the two-step nature is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the confirmation requirement and the two most decision-relevant parameters. There is no filler or repetition of the 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 is adequate for understanding the basic operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps: it does not say what the response returns (e.g., a pending request ID), how the confirmation code is delivered, or that the next action is wata_wallet_autosettlement_confirm. An agent can partially infer the flow from siblings, but not fully.

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%: all five parameters already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description only restates balancePercentage and minimumThreshold and adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Создаёт запрос на изменение правил автоматического вывода' (creates a request to change automatic withdrawal rules). It also signals this is step 1 by noting that code confirmation is required, which distinguishes it from the sibling confirm and get tools.

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 statement 'Требует подтверждения кодом' clearly implies this is the first step of a two-step flow, and the sibling names autosettlement_get and autosettlement_confirm reinforce the context. However, it does not explicitly say 'use confirm to complete the change' or 'use get to view current rules,' so some inference is still required.

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