ozon_perf_write_method

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by requiring confirm_write=true and stating that nothing is sent without it. It also clarifies that irreversible operations are not handled here, which helps an agent reason about side effects.

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 the core purpose and target API, then gives safety requirements, sibling routing, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the return format is stated at the end without unnecessary prose.

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 generic catalog-driven write tool with sparse schema and an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers how to identify the operation, the three request component types, the mandatory confirm_write guard, the sibling split, and the response envelope. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing the output schema details.

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 parameter-documentation burden. It maps each parameter to its role clearly: operation_id comes from the catalog, path_values fill placeholders, query is query-string parameters, body is a JSON request body, and confirm_write must be true. This is concise and actionable, though not deeply detailed.

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 and resource: 'Execute one WRITE endpoint from the catalog: create or update data.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating that irreversible operations are in ozon_perf_delete_method and reads are in ozon_perf_call_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 explicitly says when this tool applies (write/create/update catalog endpoints) and names the sibling tools for read and delete operations. It also provides a crucial usage condition: confirm_write must be true and nothing is sent without it, plus points to ozon_perf_search_methods for discovering operation_id.

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