ozon_discount_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Approve discount requests' without explaining effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens after approval. The behavior is implied but not transparent.

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 that front-loads the key action. The parenthetical Russian translation is mildly redundant but does not significantly harm clarity or structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-style action, the description is too thin. It omits what the approval does at a business level, what the response looks like, and how the 'tasks' input relates to the approval workflow, leaving critical context for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'tasks' parameter with an inline format listing expected fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which aligns with the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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') and a clear resource ('discount requests'), which communicates the core action. It is distinguishable from siblings like ozon_discount_decline and ozon_discount_tasks by the action and resource, though it lacks explicit differentiation language.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as ozon_discount_decline or ozon_discount_tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which approval should be performed.

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