ozon_call_method

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description expands on this by specifying exactly which flags are required for write vs destructive operations and that 'nothing is sent otherwise' for destructive ones. It also discloses the return format (JSON success envelope or error envelope). This adds behavioral context 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 well-structured with a concise summary sentence, a bullet-like 'Args' list, and a return statement. It front-loads the core behavior and safety requirements. Every sentence contributes to usability; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given that the tool is a generic method caller with an output schema (mentioned in the description) and complex safety logic, the description covers the essential usage: operation_id sourcing, path/query/body parameters, confirmation flags, and return format. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling specifics, but these are not critical for correct invocation. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains each of the six parameters: operation_id (with pointer to search_methods), path_values (for placeholders), query (query-string parameters), body (JSON request body), and the two safety flags. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact format of path_values (e.g., as a map) but overall it provides meaningful guidance.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute one catalog endpoint by operation_id.' It identifies the verb (execute), resource (catalog endpoint), and the key identifier (operation_id). This distinguishes it from siblings like ozon_call_raw (which likely calls raw endpoints) and ozon_search_methods (which searches for methods), and from provider-specific variants like wb_call_method. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and what flags are required: read endpoints run immediately, write endpoints require confirm_write=true, and destructive endpoints require both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data. It also references {svc}_search_methods for obtaining operation_id. However, it does not explicitly mention that dedicated tools (e.g., ozon_get_products) should be preferred when available, which is a minor gap in routing.

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