ozon_seller_action_products_delete

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 clarifies the scope ('from the promotion' rather than deleting the goods entirely) but provides no information about side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to the action after removal. This is minimal coverage for a mutating tool.

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 filler. The redundant Russian parenthetical '(убрать товары)' adds no information value, but the core English phrase is efficient and direct.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters, no nested objects), the description lacks enough context for an agent to invoke it confidently. It omits when to use it, what the parameters mean, and any behavioral caveats. The absence of an output schema further increases the burden on the description, which it does not meet.

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. It loosely maps 'goods' to product_ids and 'promotion' to action_id, but does not explicitly explain the roles of the two required parameters or how they interrelate. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Remove goods from the seller's own promotion.' This clearly identifies the core operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_seller_action_products_add, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_seller_action_products_add or ozon_actions_products. The context is only implicit from the available sibling names; an agent must infer that this is for removing products from a promotion the seller owns.

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