ozon_set_prices

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 add one meaningful behavioral note (min_price blocks promos below cost), but it does not disclose whether existing prices are overwritten, how batch updates behave, what happens to partial failures, or what the response indicates. 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 very short and front-loads the main action. The key behavioral hint about min_price is included economically. The redundant parenthetical Russian translation adds little but does not seriously hurt clarity.

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?

Given that this is a write operation with an array of five-field objects and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It lacks field-level requirements, expected price formats, effects on existing prices, and any error or response behavior. An agent would likely need to inspect external documentation.

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 schema provides only a shorthand field list for the prices array, with no per-field descriptions. The description clarifies the min_price parameter's purpose, which is valuable, but it does not explain offer_id, price, old_price, or auto_action_enabled semantics. Schema coverage is 100% in a structural sense, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource ('Set prices') and adds a specific sub-purpose ('Use min_price to block promos below cost'). It is unambiguous about the core operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related pricing siblings like ozon_get_prices or ozon_pricing_strategy_update.

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 hint about when min_price is useful, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention that this is the write counterpart to read-only pricing tools or when a different pricing-related tool should be used instead.

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