ozon_product_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation deletes goods but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what happens to the goods afterwards, permissions required, or side effects on inventory or listings. 'Delete' plus 'from archive' only hints at scope without explaining consequences.

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 leads with the action and the target. The parenthetical Russian translation is redundant but harmless. It is concise and front-loaded, though the ambiguous wording prevents a perfect 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 destructive, one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits essential context such as preconditions, return behavior, irreversible consequences, and how the tool should be used safely. It is barely more than a label and leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 for the undocumented offer_ids parameter. It only restates that deletion happens 'by offer_id', which mostly repeats the parameter name, and does not explain the array semantics, accepted id formats, limits, or how the 'without SKU' condition relates to the given offer IDs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and names a target ('goods without SKU from archive') plus the identifying key ('by offer_id'). The phrase 'without SKU' creates some ambiguity about whether products must lack a SKU or are only being removed from a SKU-less archive, but the core operation is identifiable and distinct from sibling archive/unarchive tools.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_product_archive, ozon_product_unarchive, or ozon_product_update_offer_id. The phrase 'from archive' implies a precondition, but the description never states explicit usage context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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