set_favorite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is gated by 'writes_enabled', that Ozon reports no outcome, and that confirmation requires a separate read call. This goes beyond basic functionality and explains real-world behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the gating condition. Every sentence adds value: the action, the lack of direct outcome, the confirmation read, and the linkage to price-drop watching. No wasted words.

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 write tool with an output schema, the description fully equips the agent to call and verify the operation. It covers what happens, how to confirm, and the relationship to other favorites-related tools.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters ('add' and 'sku'), including examples and usage notes. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, 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 verb ('Add'/'remove') and resource ('favorites'), clearly distinguishing the write action from read-only siblings like list_favorites. It also references the related check_favorite_price_drops, giving context on the domain.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool (to add or remove favorites) and provides a confirmation workflow via list_favorites. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the gating and lack of direct outcome make the usage context clear.

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