ozon_actions_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation but does not reveal side effects, whether existing prices are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains.

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 wasted words, and the Russian gloss adds clarity for a bilingual context. The [P0] tag is not behavioral content but does not detract from the overall conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but not complete enough for safe invocation. It does not mention how to discover action_id, whether the action must already exist, what happens to existing promo prices, or what result to expect.

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. It maps 'goods' to products and 'promo price' to action_price, but action_id is left implicit and there is no explanation of the product_id field or the array structure.

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 names the specific operation ('Add goods to a promotion') and the key value ('given promo price'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_actions_deactivate and ozon_actions_list. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus ozon_actions_deactivate, ozon_seller_action_products_add, or ozon_action_auto_add_products. There are no mentions of prerequisites, such as needing an existing action or candidate products, and no exclusions are given.

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