⚠️ Orders: Chestny Znak codes

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the write stores codes on Avito side, maximum 50 records, and per-item results in the response. No contradictions.

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 concise at 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with a warning icon and clear purpose. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no enums, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, constraints (max 50), response structure, and differentiation from sibling tools. No gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining dryRun as a preview feature, detailing markings structure (itemId, orderId, markings array with code constraints), and providing idempotencyKey behavior (duplicate protection, TTL, conflict errors).

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 explicitly states the tool submits 'Chestny Znak' marking codes for items in an order, distinguishing it from the sibling tool orders_apply_transition (status transitions). The specific verb 'submits' and resource 'marking codes' clearly define purpose.

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?

It specifies when to use: when the order has a setMarkings action (via availableActions from orders_get_orders). It also explicitly warns not to confuse with orders_apply_transition, providing clear usage guidance.

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