ozon_pricing_strategy_status

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names the action. It doesn't disclose error behavior for nonexistent strategy IDs, whether toggling is idempotent, whether changes affect live pricing immediately, or how success/failure is communicated — significant gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action with zero fluff. The parenthetical '(статус стратегии)' is redundant with the English phrase and is noise in another language that an agent must parse, costing a point.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with no output schema and no annotations, the description captures the core operation adequately. But it omits behavioral expectations critical to safe invocation — what happens when the strategy doesn't exist, reversibility, and downstream effects on running pricing. It's minimally viable but leaning thin.

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. The verb 'enable/disable' maps directly onto the boolean `enabled` parameter, and `strategy_id` is self-explanatory from its name, providing some semantic linkage. However, the description doesn't clarify value formats, the exact meaning of true vs false, or any constraints on strategy_id.

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 pair (enable/disable) applied to a specific resource (pricing strategy), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like ozon_pricing_strategy_create, _update, _delete, and _list. The Russian parenthetical '(статус стратегии)' reinforces the status-setting intent but adds marginal value since the English verb already conveys the meaning.

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 to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools (e.g., that a strategy must first be created via ozon_pricing_strategy_create before its status can be toggled) or any conditions favoring enable vs disable. The agent must infer usage context entirely.

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