ozon_search_promo_disable

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 does contribute the 'max 1000 SKU' cap and the promotion type (pay-per-order), but for a mutating tool it fails to disclose whether disabling is reversible, whether it takes effect immediately, what happens if more than 1000 SKUs are passed, or what the response looks like. These are significant gaps for a state-changing 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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the priority marker, the action, and the key constraint. The Russian parenthetical '(отключить продвижение)' is redundant with the English 'Disable... promotion,' but it is short and does not meaningfully bloat the description.

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 tool with one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the what (disable), the when (high ДРР), and a key limit (1000 SKU). It is missing post-conditions and reversal/error behavior, which matters for a mutation tool, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'max 1000 SKU' note provides a meaningful upper bound for the single 'skus' array parameter. However, it does not clarify what the integer SKU values represent, how to source them, or expected behavior when the limit is exceeded. The one-param schema is simple, but the description only partially compensates for the missing schema docs.

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 names a specific action ('Disable pay-per-order promotion') with a clear verb and resource, and adds a hard constraint (max 1000 SKU). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling ozon_search_promo_enable, and the '[P0]' prefix signals priority. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives a concrete operational trigger: 'use when ДРР is high' (high DRR/advertising cost share), which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the enable/disable sibling pair makes the exclusion inferable.

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