ozon_action_auto_add_delete

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, yet it only states the core operation. It does not disclose whether removal is destructive or reversible, what happens to goods already participating in the promotion, or idempotency behavior when a product_id is not currently in the auto-add list. The [P0] tag is prioritization metadata, not behavioral context.

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 a single efficient sentence with the operation stated up front and no wasted prose. The [P0] prefix is minor noise but takes negligible space. The brevity borders on under-specification, but as a standalone conciseness measure the structure is clean and immediately readable.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent can infer the call shape, but crucial details are missing: what action_id refers to, the response format, and behavior when product_ids are not in the auto-add list. The naming symmetry with ozon_action_auto_add_products partially compensates, but the description alone is incomplete.

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, but neither action_id nor product_ids is explained. The words 'goods' and 'promotion' loosely map to product_ids and action_id, and the names are largely self-explanatory, but no additional semantics are provided (e.g., what action_id identifies or what constraints apply to product_ids).

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 ('Remove') and a precise resource ('goods from automatic addition to a promotion'), making the operation unambiguous. The removal semantics implicitly distinguish it from the inverse sibling ozon_action_auto_add_products, and the meaning is clear without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions ozon_action_auto_add_products (the inverse add operation) or ozon_action_auto_add_candidates, nor any conditions that would select one tool over another. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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