set_selection_public

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally well: it flags the write gating (writes_enabled), discloses the outward-facing nature, requires confirmation, and — critically — explains that publication is reviewed by Ozon and returns status 'На модерации' rather than public, which prevents an agent from misinterpreting a non-public response as failure.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the confirmation requirement in the second, and the essential moderation-outcome caveat in the third. Zero filler.

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 tool is a mutation with outward-facing consequences and an output schema present, so return values need no explanation. The description covers gating, confirmation duty, and the moderation delay; the schema covers parameter provenance. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including that uuid comes from list_selections()[].uuid and that public=False returns the selection to link-only. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond the schema's existing documentation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (publish/unpublish) plus the resource (a selection on the account owner's public profile), with an explicit distinction between the two states. This clearly separates it from content-management siblings like create_selection, edit_selection, and set_selection_items, which operate on selection contents rather than its outward visibility.

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 conveys clear operational context: it is outward-facing, requires confirmation with the user before publishing, and is gated by writes_enabled. This implies when it should and should not be invoked. It stops short of naming explicit sibling alternatives or a when-not-to-use statement, but the context is unambiguous given the unique purpose.

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