ozon_product_update_stocks

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. It says the tool updates FBS stock but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing stock, accepts partial updates, requires warehouse IDs, affects other stock types, or returns any confirmation. This is too thin for a mutation 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 very short and gets to the point immediately. The Russian translation adds minor redundancy but is not harmful. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain update semantics, accepted product identifiers, warehouse requirements, or potential side effects. The minimal schema hint helps somewhat, but an agent would still lack enough context to invoke this correctly in ambiguous cases.

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 100% because the 'stocks' parameter has a description: 'offer_id/product_id, stock, warehouse_id'. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema partially compensates by listing the expected fields. The exact object structure and field types remain underspecified, keeping this at baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update FBS stock'. The FBS qualifier helps distinguish this from read-only stock tools like ozon_product_stocks or ozon_product_stocks_by_warehouse, and the action verb distinguishes it from getters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling or explain what constitutes 'stock' in the FBS context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use it, whether it covers all stock types or only FBS, or which sibling tool should be used for reading current stocks. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Update FBS stock'.

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