ozon_actions_deactivate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Remove goods', implying a mutating action, but does not disclose whether removal is permanent, immediate, reversible, or dependent on promotion status. This leaves the agent without important safety 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 concise sentence with a concrete example and a helpful Russian gloss. The '[P0]' prefix is minor unnecessary noise, but the core information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to understand the action. However, it omits workflow context such as how to obtain the action_id or product_ids and what a successful removal returns, so it is not fully complete.

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 product_ids and 'promotion' to action_id only implicitly, and gives no guidance on where these IDs come from, what formats to expect, or any constraints beyond the schema's raw integer types.

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 and resource: 'Remove goods from a promotion', with a concrete example ('loss-making ones'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_actions_activate, which implies adding or activating goods.

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 'e.g. loss-making ones' gives an implied use case, so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when adding goods or discovering promotion candidates.

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