ozon_seller_action_toggle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that the tool toggles a promotion state, but it omits side effects (e.g., price/visibility changes when disabling a promotion), preconditions (the action must be in a togglable state), idempotency behavior, and any response or error semantics. For a mutating tool this is a significant gap.

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 the verb first and minimal filler. The Russian parenthetical 'включить акцию' is mildly redundant with 'enable the promotion' but does not meaningfully hurt readability.

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?

The surface is small (2 params, no output schema), but with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a dense cluster of sibling tools performing similar state changes (ozon_actions_activate, ozon_actions_deactivate, ozon_seller_action_create), the description leaves critical selection and invocation information missing.

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 for both parameters. 'Enable/disable' maps loosely to is_turn_on, but action_id is entirely unexplained — the agent is not told where the ID comes from (e.g., ozon_seller_actions or ozon_actions_list) or what an 'action' refers to in this context.

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 action pair (enable/disable) and a specific resource (the seller's own promotion), so an agent understands the core operation. It also hints at differentiation from the broader ozon_actions_* family via 'seller's own', but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings ozon_actions_activate and ozon_actions_deactivate.

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 usage guidance is provided. With siblings like ozon_actions_activate and ozon_actions_deactivate covering the same enable/disable domain, the agent cannot determine when to use this toggle tool instead of those. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative references are given.

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