ozon_order_fbs_cancel

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, but it only restates the mutating nature already implied by the verb 'cancel' in the name. It does not disclose reversibility, prerequisites, side effects on the posting or inventory, or any cancellation restrictions.

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 filler; only the redundant Russian parenthetical adds minor noise. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than rich, distilled content.

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 state-changing tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is inadequate. The agent is left without essential context: where cancel_reason_id comes from, when cancellation is allowed, and what response to expect.

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%, yet the description mentions none of the three parameters. Parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the critical linkage that cancel_reason_id must be sourced from ozon_order_fbs_cancel_reasons is absent, so the agent has no way to know valid values for the required 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 (cancel) and resource (FBS posting), making the primary function clear. It distinguishes itself at a basic level from shipping, listing, and return-handling siblings, though it does not explicitly disambiguate from ozon_cancellation_approve/reject or mention ozon_order_fbs_cancel_reasons.

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 given on when cancellation is permitted (e.g., posting state restrictions, time limits) or which alternative to use instead. The highly relevant sibling ozon_order_fbs_cancel_reasons is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer when this tool applies.

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