ozon_delete_method

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses irreversibility, the hard requirement that nothing is sent unless both confirm flags are true, and the return envelope. This is meaningful behavioral safety context. It doesn't cover auth/rate limits but annotations already cover the destructive nature.

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 front-loaded with purpose and the critical safety constraint before the args list. There is a small redundancy between the early warning about required flags and their repeated 'must be true' in Args, but 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 dynamic destructive endpoint tool, the description provides enough to call it: target API, source of operation_id, required confirmations, parameter meanings, and response shape. It references an output schema and API docs, so remaining endpoint-specific details are discoverable via the catalog.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by assigning a meaning to every parameter: operation_id from catalog, path_values for placeholders, query as query-string params, body as JSON, and the two booleans must be true. It could go deeper on body construction, but it adds value over the schema titles.

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 clearly states a destructive executor for catalog endpoints ('Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint: deletes or irreversibly changes data') and points to the Ozon seller API. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as ozon_delete_raw or ozon_call_method, so not a 5.

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 implies usage for destructive endpoints and instructs the agent to get operation_id from ozon_search_methods, and it states the two confirmation flags are mandatory. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance, so it falls between clear context and implied usage.

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