ozon_auth_open

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses genuinely useful behavior: a dedicated Chrome process is launched or surfaced, the owner personally enters phone and code, the existing session survives, and no password is required. The openWorldHint/non-idempotent annotations are complemented rather than repeated, though it is silent on whether the call blocks until login finishes or how failure is reported.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the human-in-the-loop property, then the session/password guarantees. No filler, though the final clause about the password could be merged with the session-preservation statement.

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 zero-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema this covers the essentials, but it leaves the multi-step auth flow underspecified: what a successful return looks like and which sibling (status or save) is the expected next step would make the flow unambiguous.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies nothing must be supplied because the human supplies the credentials out-of-band.

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?

States a concrete pair of verbs and a concrete resource: open or show a separate Chrome instance for manual Ozon login. An agent can tell this is the interactive-login entry point rather than a credential-saving or status tool, although it never names the auth siblings explicitly.

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 the situation (a human must log in by hand) and explains who does what, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus ozon_auth_save or ozon_auth_status, and no statement of what to do after login completes.

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