ozon_carriage_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and it does disclose a non-obvious API behavior: an empty body would create a real carriage with Ozon-selected postings, which is exactly why delivery_method_id is required. This goes beyond the schema and warns about side effects. It still does not mention post-creation approval or reversibility, but the key risk is covered.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about Ozon's empty-body behavior follows immediately without diluting the main message.

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 three-scalar-parameter create action the description is close, but no output schema exists and the lifecycle is not fully closed: it does not say what the response contains (e.g., a carriage id) or that approval may be required via ozon_carriage_approve, one of its siblings. An agent invoking this tool could stop after creation without completing the workflow.

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?

The description adds real meaning to delivery_method_id beyond the schema's 'from ozon_delivery_methods' by explaining why it is required and what happens if it is omitted. departure_date is already declared RFC3339 in the schema, and containers_count has a default, so the description need not repeat those.

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?

States the action and resource explicitly ('Create an FBS carriage') and adds that it is the replacement for the handover act, which differentiates it from the legacy act-creation flow among siblings. The Russian gloss reinforces the domain mapping without ambiguity.

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 replacement phrasing tells an agent this is the current tool for FBS carriage creation rather than the old handover act flow. It also instructs that delivery_method_id must be set to avoid Ozon auto-picking postings. It does not explicitly contrast with carriage_approve or list tools, but the context is clear enough.

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