ozon_product_unarchive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies a state-changing mutation, but nothing is said about reversibility, idempotency, batch limits, side effects, or what happens if a product is already unarchived. This mirrors the gap seen in mutation tools with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the Russian parenthetical is a short helpful localization. It is efficiently structured; the deficiency lies in missing content, not in verbosity.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the absence of annotations and 0% schema coverage means the description must do more. An agent cannot tell what identifiers to supply, whether multiple products can be unarchived at once, or what the response looks like — leaving a meaningful gap for a mutation operation.

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, but it never mentions product_id. The schema only reveals it is an array of integers; the description adds no meaning about whether these are Ozon product IDs, how many can be passed, or their format. A single-parameter tool should easily have clarified this.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('goods from archive'), clearly conveying the inverse of archiving. This distinguishes it from its only closely related sibling, ozon_product_archive. However, 'goods' is less precise than the tool name's 'product' terminology, and the description doesn't explicitly confirm these are product records.

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, preconditions (e.g., product must currently be archived), or exclusions. The only related sibling, ozon_product_archive, is never referenced, leaving the agent to infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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