ozon_order_fbs_ship

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that this action likely changes the order status, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or what the API returns. 'Assemble' hints at mutation but leaves the consequences unclear.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before showing the package structure. The Russian parenthetical '(собрать заказ)' mostly duplicates 'Assemble', but overall the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain the result of the call, the meaning of posting_number, any constraints on packages, or behavioral effects. The provided package format is helpful but not sufficient 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful package structure 'packages: [{products: [{product_id, quantity}]}]' that the schema omits entirely. However, posting_number is left undescribed, and package-level fields are not explained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 clearly identifies the operation as 'Assemble an FBS order' and notes the v4 API version, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ozon_order_fbs_get or ozon_order_fbs_cancel by its action, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 versus other FBS order tools. There are no prerequisites, no mention of order status requirements, and no indication of what should happen before assembling an order. The only implied signal is the verb 'assemble' in the description.

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