ozon_perf_use_cabinet

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that this tool has a persistent side effect: it changes which credentials are used for later API calls. It also cross-references the listing tool, giving the agent a way to find valid input. No contradiction with readOnlyHint false or idempotentHint true.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and a brief Args line that adds value. The most important information is front-loaded with no filler.

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 single-parameter state-switching tool, the description plus the output schema covers almost everything an agent needs: what it does, how to get a valid name, and the effect on subsequent calls. It does not mention failure modes, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 schema only provides the name and type, but the description enriches the parameter by explaining that 'name' is the cabinet to activate and references ozon_perf_list_cabinets for valid values. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though more detail (e.g., exact format or error behavior) would be welcome.

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 states a specific action ('Switch the active cabinet') with a clear resource (the cabinet) and explains the effect on subsequent API calls. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling ozon_use_cabinet beyond the name, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 it ('Subsequent API calls use its credentials') and points to ozon_perf_list_cabinets for obtaining a valid name. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like ozon_use_cabinet or state exclusions, leaving the selection mostly to inference.

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