Прямой вызов Merchants API

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

This is an Annotation Contradiction. The description explicitly lists DELETE as a supported method, which is inherently destructive, but the annotation destructiveHint=false indicates the tool is not destructive. The description also discloses that body is sent raw without transformations, but the destructiveHint mismatch is a serious inconsistency that could mislead the agent.

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 concise yet dense: two sentences front-loaded with purpose ('Запасной выход') and immediately covering path, methods, body format, and base URL. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 essential context for a raw API request: base URL, method restrictions, body format, and example paths. While it lacks response format and authentication details, these are less critical for a raw pass-through tool. The main gap is the destructiveHint contradiction, but that is already penalized in transparency. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds significant value by providing wire-format examples ({ offers: [...] }) and clarifying that body is sent without transformations, going beyond the schema's generic descriptions. It also associates methods with specific paths, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it is a direct call to any path of the Yandex Goods partner API, with specific verb 'прямой вызов' and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a fallback (Запасной выход) that covers arbitrary paths, unlike the specialized sibling 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 description explicitly positions the tool as a fallback (Запасной выход), implying it should be used when dedicated sibling tools (e.g., list_feeds, set_offer_price) are not applicable. It provides concrete method examples and path examples, giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'prefer specialized tools when available'.

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