ozon_set_key

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details: the key goes into the chat transcript, requires a specific flag, is validated against the marketplace on success, saved locally with chmod 600, and never echoed back. This goes well beyond the annotations and covers security, persistence, and validation behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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-organized with a warning, alternative, and args breakdown. It front-loads the key security concern and flag requirement. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value for a security-sensitive operation. The structure is clear and readable, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 covers when to use, the risk, the flag, the alternative, argument semantics, and success behavior (validation and shop name reporting). The only notable omission is the specific required fields for the 'credentials' dict, which prevents full completeness for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Otherwise, the context is thorough.

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 must compensate. It explains 'cabinet' with detailed default behavior and 'i_understand_key_goes_to_chat' clearly. However, 'credentials' is described only as 'dict with the required fields ({fields})' without enumerating the actual fields (e.g., api_key, client_id). This is a significant gap for an agent to know what to provide, so parameter semantics is only partially addressed.

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 changes/rotates the API key from chat, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the safer installer alternative, which is a sibling-like option, and the name already indicates the marketplace. The context (expired or leaked key) makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly recommends the installer as the safe alternative when the key should not enter chat, and advises using scoped keys with rotation in the seller cabinet if exposed. It also explains the default cabinet behavior, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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