create_topup_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool asks the owner (a request, not a direct action), reuses pending payments, and advises waiting on get_payment_status. This is transparent about its side effects and interactions, though it could mention whether it mutates state or requires specific permissions.

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, front-loading the primary purpose and trigger condition. Every sentence adds value: the action, the exclusion (card), and the pending-payment handling. No fluff.

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 covers the trigger, the payment flow, and interactions with get_payment_status, but it lacks parameter semantics and does not describe the tool's return value (no output schema). For a tool that asks the owner, the agent needs to know what happens next, but this is partially inferred from the sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the meaning of amountRub or needCoins, nor their relationship (e.g., exchange rate or required fields). An agent cannot infer how to set these parameters correctly from the description alone.

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 clearly states the action (ask the owner to top up coins), the resource (coins), and the method (via YooKassa or the cabinet). It also specifies the trigger condition (INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_payment_status or create_purchase.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('Call on INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS'), what not to do ('Never take a card in chat'), and provides behavioral rules ('Reuses today's pending payment... do not hammer retries. If get_payment_status is pending, wait.'). This gives clear context and exclusions, guiding the agent on proper invocation.

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