ozon_write_method

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

Annotations only provide basic read-only/destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the confirmation gate, the fact that no request is sent without confirm_write=true, the target API, and the response envelope format. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then safety requirement and sibling routing, then argument definitions, then return format. Every line adds necessary information without filler.

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 dynamic catalog-driven tool, the description covers what an agent needs: which API it targets, how to find operation IDs, how to fill path/query/body, the mandatory confirmation setting, expected return shape, and when to use sibling tools. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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 full burden. It provides concise but useful meanings for all five parameters: operation_id as the catalog id, path_values as placeholder substitutions, query as query-string params, body as JSON body, and confirm_write as the required safety flag. The body and query entries are somewhat generic, so it is not a 5.

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 clearly states the action ('Execute one WRITE endpoint from the catalog: create or update data') and identifies the resource as a catalog write endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming ozon_call_method for reads and ozon_delete_method for irreversible operations.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Requires confirm_write=true; nothing is sent without it' and 'Irreversible operations live in ozon_delete_method, reads in ozon_call_method.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and which alternative to select for other operation classes.

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