wb_prices_club_discount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the important limit of 1000 goods per request and clearly signals a write operation via 'Set'. However, it does not explain whether existing discounts are overwritten, what error behavior occurs, or what permission or response expectations exist.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the key constraint, and contains no filler. The parenthetical Russian phrase is redundant but harmless.

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 tool is simple and the description plus schema provide enough to make a basic call with the correct payload. However, there is no output schema and no mention of response semantics, error handling, or behavior on exceeding the 1000-item limit, so an agent lacks some operational context.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the data parameter as '[{nmID, clubDiscount}, ...]'. The description adds context by identifying the operation as setting WB Club discounts and notes the request limit, but it does not add new field-level semantics 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 clearly states a specific action ('Set WB Club discounts') on a specific resource, and the max-1000 constraint further distinguishes it from general price-setting tools. The Russian parenthetical reinforces the intended scope.

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 implies when to use the tool: when setting WB Club discounts. It is distinguishable from siblings like wb_prices_set and wb_prices_b2b_set by name and scope, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to those alternatives.

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