ozon_set_key

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the key is sent into the chat transcript, requires an explicit acknowledgment flag, is saved locally with chmod 600, is never echoed back, and is validated against the marketplace on success. This is rich, security-relevant behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense but well-structured: a short purpose, a prominent security warning, an alternative recommendation, then concise per-parameter guidance, followed by success behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the most critical caveat is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's security sensitivity, the description covers the trigger, the prerequisites, the confirmation requirement, the default behavior, the failure-avoidance alternative, and post-success validation. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to exhaustively document return values. Nothing essential to calling the tool correctly 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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It explains credentials as a dict with required fields, cabinet selection including defaults and fallback naming, and the confirmation flag's meaning. However, the exact required fields for credentials are left as a placeholder ('{fields}'), so it does not fully specify how to build a valid credentials object.

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 'Change / rotate the API key from chat', a specific verb with a clear resource and intent. The examples ('expired or leaked') and the reference to the installer alternative make it easy to distinguish from all sibling tools.

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 to use the tool (key expired or leaked), and explicitly contrasts it with the safer installer alternative where the key never enters chat. It also adds practical guidance to use a scoped key and rotate it in the seller cabinet if exposed.

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