ozon_seller_action_products_add

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

Annotations are absent, so the description alone must disclose behavior, but it stops at the bare operation. It does not explain whether products are appended or replaced, what constraints apply to action_price, what happens when an action_id or product is invalid, or what side effects occur.

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 one short sentence with the core action front-loaded. The redundant Russian parenthetical '(добавить товары)' adds no information for non-Russian users, preventing a 5, but the overall format is clean and appropriately sized.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important invocation context uncovered: how to obtain a valid action_id, the exact expected product object shape and types, and what a successful response looks like. It is enough to identify the intended operation, but not enough to invoke it confidently without external API knowledge.

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 maps the two parameters to concepts ('goods' corresponds to products, 'promotion' corresponds to action_id), adding modest meaning beyond the schema. The schema already provides a shape hint for products, but action_price semantics and product_id type remain unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 action verb ('Add') and resource ('goods' to 'the seller's own promotion'), so the tool's job is clear without opening the schema. It is distinguishable from siblings like ozon_seller_action_products_delete, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives, nor conditions or exclusions. The imperative 'Add goods to the seller's own promotion' provides an implied usage context for adding products to an existing seller action.

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