ozon_ad_products_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior: the 500-item limit and that a missing bid defaults to the competitive bid. However, it does not explain side effects such as whether existing products are preserved, whether duplicate SKUs are handled, or what errors may occur.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation, then gives the key constraint and bid semantics. The trailing Russian phrase '(добавить товары)' is redundant and does not earn its place, but the rest of the description is efficiently written.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: target campaign, item limit, and bid format. It is missing context about preconditions, whether the operation is additive or replacing, and response/error behavior, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does meaningfully. It specifies the bids structure as [{sku, bid}], states that bid amounts are in micro-rubles, and explains the fallback behavior when bid is omitted. The campaign_id parameter is not described beyond its name, but the overall parameter guidance is strong.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('goods to a CPC campaign'), and adds a clear scope limit ('max 500'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like deletion or bid-management tools, and the campaign type is explicitly identified.

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 implies its use case: adding products to a CPC campaign with optional bids. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as ozon_ad_campaign_products or ozon_ad_products_delete, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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