ozon_perf_set_key

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses critical side effects: the key enters the chat transcript, requires an explicit acknowledgment flag, is saved locally with chmod 600, and is never echoed back. It also states validation behavior on success.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a warning, alternative, parameter explanations, and success behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args list improves scannability.

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?

The description covers security implications, defaults, local file permissions, and post-success validation. The only notable gap is the unresolved {fields} placeholder for credentials, which prevents the agent from constructing the required argument accurately.

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 carry the weight. It explains cabinet's default resolution logic and the i_understand_key_goes_to_chat requirement well, but leaves credentials as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})' — an unexpanded placeholder that does not tell the agent what fields are actually required.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Change / rotate the API key from chat'. It clearly states the trigger scenarios (expired or leaked key) and is distinguishable from the many sibling set_key tools by the ozon_perf prefix and the explicit 'from chat' scope.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('old one expired or leaked') and names the safe alternative ('the installer, where the key never enters chat'). It also instructs using a scoped key and rotating in the seller cabinet if exposed, providing clear routing between this tool and alternatives.

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