ozon_perf_delete_raw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds meaningful safety context by emphasizing 'ANY path' and requiring both confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent concrete guardrails around an irreversible operation. No contradiction with 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 compact, front-loads the destructive warning, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. The only notable flaw is the malformed JSON example ('{"ok": true, "status", "data"}'), which slightly undermines precision. 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 API tool, the description is nearly self-contained: it covers all seven parameters, the required confirmation flags, the return envelope, and the API target. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance among sibling tools, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 documentation burden. It adds real meaning by specifying path format ('full path beginning with /'), locking method to DELETE, explaining host override defaults, and mandating the two confirmation booleans. It does not detail query or body formatting, but those are generically typed raw parameters.

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 is explicit: 'Delete data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog.' This states a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the 'raw path' framing distinguishes it from catalog-bound delete methods like ozon_perf_delete_method. The additional 'DELETE only' constraint further clarifies the operation.

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 'including paths not in the catalog' clearly signals when this raw tool is appropriate, and the description points to the target API. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance. Overall, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over catalog-specific tools.

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