ozon_chat_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a message is sent, with no mention of authorization requirements, side effects, idempotency, message limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutating action, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical Russian translation is slightly redundant but harmless. It earns a high score for brevity, though it uses that brevity at the expense of behavioral detail.

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 guess the intended call. Still, it lacks any context about chat_id provenance, constraints on text, or response behavior, so it is not fully complete for an agent operating independently.

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%, and the description does not explicitly document chat_id or text. However, the tool name and description make the semantics of the two string parameters reasonably inferable: chat_id identifies the chat and text is the message content. The description adds minimal but non-zero meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Send a chat message') on a clear resource, which distinguishes it from most of the large sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely related ozon_chat_send_file, but the message/text framing makes the text-based intent reasonably clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus chat_send_file, chat_start, or chat_reply, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing chat_id. Usage context is entirely absent.

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