ozon_order_fbs_act_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful lifecycle context by declaring the endpoint deprecated and scheduled to be switched off, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as synchronous creation, side effects, authentication needs, or expected response content.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the deprecation warning and replacement path follow immediately, making the most important information immediately visible.

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 deprecated tool with one optional parameter, the deprecation and migration guidance is strong and nearly sufficient. However, the undocumented containers_count parameter and the lack of any outcome or response detail leave the agent with incomplete context for confident 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%, and the description does not mention containers_count at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the agent is left without any explanation of the only parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Create an FBS handover act', which clearly identifies the operation. It also differentiates this tool from nearby sibling tools by naming the act-creation action specifically, rather than act status, PDF, or digital act functions.

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?

Explicit deprecation guidance is provided, including the cutoff date (2026-09-07) and the exact replacement sequence ('use ozon_carriage_create plus ozon_carriage_approve'). This gives an agent clear when-not-to-use and where-to-route instructions.

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