ozon_returns_fbs_reject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful constraint ('comment required') but does not explain consequences, reversibility, permissions, or what happens after rejection. The behavioral profile of this mutation tool is largely undisclosed.

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 padding, which is concise. The Russian phrase adds minor redundancy but does not significantly harm clarity.

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 side-effecting action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention what the tool returns, how success is reported, or what identifying information return_id refers to, so an agent may lack enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 only hints that 'reason' is a required comment. It does not explain the meaning of return_id, the expected format of reason, or how the two parameters relate to the rejection action.

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 ('Reject'), the resource ('an rFBS claim'), and a key constraint ('comment required'), which clearly identifies the operation. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like ozon_returns_fbs_approve and ozon_returns_fbs_get.

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 when to use the tool—when an rFBS claim needs to be rejected—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions. No guidance is given about when to choose approve instead or what conditions must be met before rejecting.

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