wb_promotions_add_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral nuance: upload_now=false defers the upload until promotion start, and it states that an uploadID is returned. However, it does not explain side effects, idempotency, whether goods already in the promotion are affected, or any permission requirements.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the key flag behavior, then the return value. The stray Russian parenthetical '(вступить в акцию)' adds noise and does not earn its place, but the overall structure remains tight and efficient.

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 simple add-to-promotion operation with no output schema, the description covers the primary action, the upload_now nuance, and the return value. Still, it omits practical context such as limits on nm_ids, whether the promotion must be in a certain state, how uploadID is used afterward, and potential error conditions.

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 adds useful meaning for upload_now by explaining the deferral behavior, and 'goods' clarifies that nm_ids are product identifiers. However, promotion_id and nm_ids are not explicitly described beyond their names and types, leaving some burden on the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add goods to a promotion.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_promotions_products (which likely lists/reads promotion products) and wb_promotion_exit (which removes from a promotion). The purpose is immediately identifiable.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_promotions_products, wb_promotions_details, or wb_promotion_exit. The usage is only implied by the name and generic description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing logic.

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