ozon_pricing_strategy_create

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 reveals nothing about side effects of creating a strategy, whether the strategy becomes active immediately, idempotency, failure behavior, or interactions with existing strategies/prices. For a mutation tool this is a notable gap.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded with purpose, then parameter format. However, the trailing Russian parenthetical '(создать стратегию)' redundantly repeats 'Create a pricing strategy' and earns no place in the description given that the intended audience is an AI agent reading English.

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 2-parameter create tool, the description is minimally sufficient to construct a valid call: it conveys purpose and the competitors structure with a range constraint. Missing context includes where competitor_id values come from, whether the strategy name must be unique, and what the API returns on success — but no output schema exists to offload this, so these gaps are meaningful yet not crippling.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value for the competitors parameter by specifying the structure [{competitor_id, coefficient}] and the coefficient constraint 0.5-1.2 of competitor price — especially helpful because the schema's items object is completely opaque. However, the name parameter gets no semantic context beyond its declared string type.

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 a pricing strategy'), and the create operation is semantically distinct from the sibling set of pricing_strategy_update/delete/list/info tools. However, it largely restates the tool name, and the differentiating work is done by the name rather than the description itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that competitors should be sourced from ozon_pricing_competitors or already exist), and no mention that ozon_pricing_strategy_update is the path for modifying an existing strategy. The only usage-relevant content is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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