ozon_action_auto_add_products

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 the conceptual behavior — Ozon will add goods automatically on a given date — but it does not clarify whether this tool creates, lists, or modifies auto-add entries, nor whether it has side effects or requires specific permissions. The absence of a clear operation leaves the tool's behavior ambiguous.

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, compact sentence with no redundant text, and the [P0] priority marker is useful. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity sacrifices operational clarity.

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?

Even though the parameter count is small, the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return value, operation type, and how it relates to sibling auto-add tools. It does none of these. The description is a definitional fragment rather than a complete tool contract, leaving an agent uncertain about invocation semantics.

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 only 50%; limit and offset have no descriptions in the schema or the tool description. The description does not add meaning for action_id or auto_add_date beyond the schema, and it says nothing about how limit and offset affect results. Since the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, this is a notable gap.

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 identifies the resource: goods that Ozon will add to a promotion automatically on a specified date. It is semantically specific and understandable in context. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as ozon_action_auto_add_candidates or ozon_action_auto_add_delete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ozon_action_auto_add_candidates or ozon_action_auto_add_delete. The description does not state expected use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions, so an agent has to infer when it should be invoked.

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