ozon_chat_start

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. 'Start a chat' suggests a mutating action, but the description does not state whether it creates a new conversation, requires an existing chat, has side effects, or what the response contains.

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 with no filler, and the key resource ('posting') is front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substantive guidance.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the result of starting a chat, whether a chat may already exist, or how this differs from related chat tools, leaving an agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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 the undocumented posting_number parameter. The phrase 'about a posting' weakly links the parameter to the tool's purpose, but it does not explain the meaning, format, or expected value of posting_number beyond its name.

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 ('Start a chat') and resource ('about a posting'), with the Russian equivalent for clarity. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like ozon_chat_send or ozon_chat_history, though it does not explain what 'start' returns or implies.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_chat_send, ozon_chat_list, or ozon_chat_read. The description implies it is used for initiating a chat about a posting, but does not clarify prerequisites or edge cases like existing chats.

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