ozon_product_archive

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 states the action only and does not reveal what archiving actually does to the product, whether the action is reversible, whether it affects stock or visibility, or what the response looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating 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 description is short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical Russian translation simply repeats the same phrase and adds no new information. It is concise but not richly structured; there is no wasted prose, yet the sentence does too little work to earn a higher score.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description names the operation but omits parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and alternatives. There is no output schema to clarify the return value, and the lack of annotations means the description should have covered these gaps but does not.

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 does not mention product_id at all. The agent gets no explanation of what identifier should be passed, whether it is an Ozon product ID or SKU, or how many values are expected beyond the bare array-of-integers type in the schema.

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 action ('Move goods to archive') and the resource ('goods/products'), which is specific enough to understand the tool's core function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ozon_product_delete or ozon_product_unarchive, but the archive action itself is distinct and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when archiving products, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as ozon_product_unarchive or ozon_product_delete, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context must be inferred from the verb and the sibling names.

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