ozon_pricing_strategy_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the word 'update' and gives no information about side effects, whether unspecified fields are reset or preserved, prerequisites, authentication requirements, or consequences for active pricing. This is a mutation tool, yet the description reveals no behavioral context beyond the operation.

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 text is concise to the point of under-specification: one short sentence restating the tool name and a redundant Russian parenthetical. No detail is front-loaded because there is no substantive detail, and the sentence does not add information beyond the tool name.

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 tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine valid values for competitors, how updates are applied, whether a strategy must exist first, or 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% and the description mentions none of the three required parameters. The description does not explain what strategy_id refers to, what format name follows, or what shape each competitor object must have, so an agent has no basis for constructing a valid invocation.

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 'Update a pricing strategy' is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name; it restates the resource and verb without adding any detail about what 'update' means or which attributes are affected. It conveys a general operation but does not distinguish the tool from sibling pricing-strategy tools beyond the word already present in the name.

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 alternatives such as ozon_pricing_strategy_create, ozon_pricing_strategy_info, or ozon_pricing_strategy_delete. The only usage signal is the inferred meaning of 'update'; the description does not state that the strategy must already exist, whether updates are partial or full, or what conditions warrant choosing this tool.

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