ozon_review_reply

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, but 'Reply to a review' only implies a write operation. It does not state whether an existing reply is overwritten, whether replies are published immediately or moderated, what side effects occur, or what the API returns; the Russian parenthetical is a translation and adds no behavioral information.

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 and front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical '(ответить на отзыв)' is a direct translation that duplicates the English meaning and does not earn its place. The description is a bare fragment with no explanatory elaboration, so brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient: an agent does not learn what the tool returns on success, whether replies replace existing ones, or how this relates to ozon_review_reply_delete and ozon_review_comments. The tool signature is simple (two required string params), which prevents a lower score, but the write-side behavior is left entirely unspecified.

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, and it barely does: the verb 'reply' indirectly maps review_id to the target review and text to the reply content. The parameter names are self-evident enough that an agent will not be lost, but no constraints or format details (e.g., text length limits, review_id format) are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('reply') and resource ('review'), so an agent can tell this posts a response to a customer review. However, it does not differentiate from related siblings like ozon_review_comments (which may also involve responding to reviews) or ozon_review_reply_delete (the delete counterpart), so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 such as ozon_review_comments or ozon_review_reply_delete. No prerequisites are stated—e.g., whether a review must be unanswered, whether a reply can be posted only once per review, or whether posting requires a verified seller account.

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