ozon_perf_write_raw

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

Annotations already mark it as mutable and open-world; the description adds non-obvious behavior: only POST/PUT/PATCH are supported, confirm_write must be true, paths must start with '/', and a specific JSON envelope is returned. This is consistent with the annotations and provides a meaningful safety guardrail.

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 primary purpose, then organized into target API, method/confirm constraints, Args, and return format with no filler. The only minor issue is repeating 'POST, PUT or PATCH' and the confirm_write requirement in both the intro and the Args list.

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 supplies everything an agent needs to make a correct call: target API, allowed methods, path prefix requirement, confirm_write guard, per-parameter semantics, and return/error envelope. Since an output schema and safety annotations also exist, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the Args list carries full responsibility and covers all six parameters: method values, path format, host override default, query/body purpose, and confirm_write behavior. It could specify optionality or query/body types more precisely, but it is well above the minimum for a bare schema.

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 names the action ('Create or update data'), the resource (OZON Performance API paths), and the defining scope ('ANY path, including paths not in the catalog'), which clearly separates it from catalog-bound siblings like ozon_perf_write_method. The explicit POST/PUT/PATCH restriction removes any ambiguity that this is a raw write tool.

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 provides clear usage context: use for writes/updates via POST/PUT/PATCH, including out-of-catalog paths, and confirm_write=true is a hard prerequisite. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for catalog-validated writes, so it stops one step short of full when/when-not guidance.

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