ozon_chat_send_file

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 the action and does not mention side effects, supported file types, size limits, authentication requirements, or what the API returns, which is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 very short and front-loaded with the essential action. The parenthetical Russian translation adds slight redundancy but does not significantly harm clarity, so the structure is appropriately terse.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the one-line description is not enough for confident invocation. An agent still needs to infer parameter semantics and the operational behavior of the call, especially because this is a mutating action.

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%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. The meanings of chat_id, file_url, and file_name are left entirely to inference, with no guidance on expected formats, URL accessibility, or naming conventions.

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 clearly specifies the action ('send'), the object ('a file'), and the destination ('a chat'). It is distinct from sibling tools like ozon_chat_send by foregrounding the file payload, so an agent can identify this tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 intended use case is implied: use this tool when a file needs to be sent into a chat. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as ozon_chat_send for text messages, so the guidance is minimal rather than instructive.

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