ozon_carriage_approve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core state transition from 'new' to 'formed', but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or response behavior after approval.

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 that front-loads the action, resource, and state transition. The parenthetical local-language clarification adds clarity without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter approve action, the core invocation semantics are present, but there is no output schema or annotation to fill gaps such as expected response, error conditions, or whether the operation is irreversible.

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. It does so partially by identifying the target resource ('carriage'), making carriage_id self-explanatory as the carriage to approve, but it provides no detail about where to find the ID or format requirements.

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 ('Approve'), names the resource ('carriage'), and gives a precise state transition ('status new to formed'), plus a Russian confirmation ('подтвердить отгрузку'). This makes it clearly distinct from other approval tools (returns, cancellation, discount) and from carriage create/list siblings.

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 'status new to formed' clause implies the tool is meant for carriages currently in 'new' status that need to be formed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as ozon_carriage_create or other approve tools.

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