ozon_write_raw

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavior: it only accepts POST/PUT/PATCH, requires confirm_write, documents host defaulting, and specifies the return envelope. It does not discuss error cases or rate limits, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 two opening sentences plus a tight Args list, with the most important scope statement front-loaded. Every line adds information, there is no filler, and the return format is included compactly at the end.

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 raw-path write tool with six parameters, the description supplies the target API, method limitations, parameter semantics, confirmation requirement, and response envelope. An agent has enough to construct a valid call, including knowledge of the required confirm_write override, without needing the output schema.

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 carries the full burden for six parameters. It adds concrete constraints: method values, path format, host defaulting, query-string semantics, JSON body type, and the mandatory confirm_write flag. Every parameter receives meaning beyond its bare title.

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 action ('Create or update data') and resource ('at ANY path'), and immediately differentiates it from catalog-based siblings by noting paths not in the catalog. The POST/PUT/PATCH restriction and target API anchor it as a raw write tool, so an agent can distinguish it from ozon_get_raw, ozon_delete_raw, and ozon_write_method.

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 clearly states when the tool applies: any raw write via POST/PUT/PATCH, and requires confirm_write=true. It does not name sibling alternatives or an explicit when-not-to-use, but the 'paths not in the catalog' wording gives a usable decision boundary.

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