ozon_delete_raw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's warning about modifying data is consistent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns that paths not in the catalog can be deleted, requires explicit confirmation flags, and specifies the return envelope. It could go further by noting irreversibility or auth requirements, but it is already transparent about 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 compact and front-loaded with the most important warning ('Delete data at ANY path'). The Args list is terse and useful. It loses one point because the return-format line is slightly vague ('or the error envelope') and could be more explicit, but overall every sentence 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 destructive raw HTTP tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the critical context: what it deletes, the required confirmations, the target API, and the return shape. It doesn't mention authentication prerequisites or rate limits, but the sibling context (ozon_check_auth, ozon_use_cabinet) implies auth is handled elsewhere. This is nearly complete for the tool's purpose.

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 must compensate. It does: it explains path ('full path beginning with '/''), method ('DELETE'), host ('host override'), query, body, and the two confirmation booleans. It doesn't detail the error envelope structure, but it names it. This is strong compensation for a schema with no descriptions.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_delete_method or ozon_get_raw. It also names the target API and the HTTP method, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'DELETE only' and states that both confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true are required. It also implies this is the raw/destructive variant among siblings, and the 'ANY path' warning tells the agent when to use it (low-level deletion) versus safer alternatives. This is strong usage guidance.

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