ozon_auth_save

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive state-changing call. The description adds useful context that the primary authorization lives in a separate Chrome profile and that this writes a 'private' backup copy, hinting at sensitive on-disk data. It still omits where the backup goes, whether it overwrites a prior copy, and what happens if the authorization check fails.

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?

Two short sentences with the action sequence front-loaded (verify, then save) followed by an environmental note about the Chrome profile. The second sentence is slightly tangential but does clarify why the saved copy is a backup rather than the live session, so it earns its place.

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 covering the safety profile, the description covers the what and the when. It is missing failure-mode behavior (what the agent should do if verification fails) and any indication of the result, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies since the schema is trivially complete and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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?

Description names a specific compound action: verify authorization after a manual login and save a private session backup. This is clearly distinct from a plain status check or an open-login flow. It falls short of 5 because it never names or contrasts a sibling tool, so the agent must infer that ozon_auth_status is the read-only alternative.

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 phrase 'После ручного входа' (after manual login) provides a real usage precondition, implying this runs at the tail of the login sequence rather than as a first step. However, there is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites such as an existing session, and no explicit pointer to ozon_auth_status or ozon_auth_open as alternatives.

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