ozon_discount_decline

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 discount requests are declined; it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, whether a seller_comment is required, what side effects occur, 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The Russian parenthetical is redundant but not harmful. It is appropriately concise for a simple action, though it could have been slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not mention return values, result behavior, or whether seller_comment is mandatory when declining. Given the destructive/mutating nature of the action, important context about expected input requirements and outcomes is missing.

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 input schema already contains a 100% description coverage for the single required parameter 'tasks' with the format '[{id, seller_comment}]'. The tool description adds no further meaning about parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema which is minimally sufficient but not enriched.

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 clear verb ('Decline') and resource ('discount requests'), and the action is naturally contrasted with the sibling 'ozon_discount_approve' (approve vs decline). It does not elaborate on the exact domain or scope of the discount requests, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings like ozon_discount_approve or ozon_discount_tasks. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The agent must infer usage solely from the verb 'decline'.

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