ozon_cancellation_reject

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. 'Reject' implies a mutating action, but the description does not state whether the action is reversible, what side effects occur, whether special permissions are needed, or how the optional 'comment' parameter influences behavior. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 that is front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with no annotation support and no schema descriptions. It is terse without being appropriately sized, omitting parameter and usage context that should be present.

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?

The tool is simple (two flat parameters, no output schema), but the description still leaves critical gaps: it does not clarify the meaning of 'cancellation_id', the role of 'comment', or what happens after a rejection. Without annotations or schema descriptions, this incomplete context makes it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 for missing parameter explanations. It does not explain that 'cancellation_id' identifies which claim to reject, or what the 'comment' field is used for. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the raw parameter names and 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 ('reject') and resource ('cancellation claim'), making the action unambiguous. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like 'ozon_cancellation_approve' (approve) and 'ozon_cancellation_list' (list). The Russian translation ('отклонить отмену') reinforces rather than confuses the meaning.

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 about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description does not mention the sibling approve/list tools, nor does it state any conditions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between rejection and other cancellation actions.

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