ozon_returns_rfbs_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries an important burden, and it does add value by explaining the effect of each action: 'confirm goods received,' 'refund,' and 'compensation without return.' However, it omits preconditions, reversibility, permission requirements, error cases, and response behavior, which is a notable gap for a financial mutation.

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 text is short, front-loaded, and quickly communicates the available actions. It loses a point because the parenthetical Russian phrase 'действие по возврату' repeats the English label without adding new information.

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 financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin: it doesn't say how to obtain return_id, whether comment is required for some actions, or what a successful result looks like. The action semantics help, but the tool remains underspecified for safe, confident invocation.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics to the action parameter by translating each allowed value into a business effect, going beyond the bare schema text. Yet schema coverage is only 33%: return_id (which ID, where to get it) and comment (purpose, when needed) are not explained, so the description only partially compensates.

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 identifies the tool as an rFBS return claim action and enumerates the exact actions available (receive-return, return-money, compensate), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_returns_fbs_approve and ozon_returns_fbs_reject. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'perform' or 'execute,' leaving the operation itself slightly implied.

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 usage by listing the three claim actions but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools for alternative return workflows. An agent must infer that this tool is for receive/refund/compensate actions rather than for approval, rejection, or reporting.

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