ozon_product_update_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Update product images' but does not state whether the supplied images replace existing images, what format the image strings must be in, whether side effects occur, or what response can be expected. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, with no fluff. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete: the single sentence does not earn its place by providing enough operational detail for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, critical context is missing for a mutation tool. The agent knows the action and topic but lacks information about request expectations, result format, failure modes, or how this tool differs from similar product update tools.

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. It adds no meaning beyond the schema: 'images' is merely restated, and no detail is given about image URL requirements, image count limits, or how product_id is used. The parenthetical 'изображения' is only a translation, not semantic enrichment.

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 action ('Update') and a specific resource ('product images'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose relative to the many sibling product tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like ozon_product_attributes_update, but the resource is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_product_attributes_update or other product update tools. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.