ozon_seller_actions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only listing operation, what data it returns, how pagination works, what the 'limit' parameter controls, or any side effects. The agent is left entirely uninformed about runtime behavior.

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 very short and contains no filler, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single clause conveys only a category label, not usable tool instructions, so brevity here comes at the expense of substantive information.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not state the operation type, the meaning of the response, the effect of 'limit' and 'status', or how it relates to the many closely named seller-action siblings. An agent could not reliably select or invoke this tool.

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 only 50%: 'limit' has no description, and 'status' is only described as 'status filter'. The tool description adds no meaning for either parameter, does not explain possible status values, and does not clarify what 'limit' limits. It fails to compensate for the schema's incomplete 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 explains what 'seller actions' refers to conceptually ('seller's own promotions, as opposed to Ozon's'), but it contains no verb or operation. It never states whether the tool lists, creates, updates, or deletes these promotions, so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually does from the description alone.

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 phrase 'as opposed to Ozon's' implies a distinction from Ozon-owned promotions, which is a weak usage signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like ozon_actions_list, ozon_seller_action_products, or ozon_seller_action_toggle, and no mention of scenarios where it should not be used.

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