ym_set_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it explicitly says 'WRITE', requires confirm_write=true, explains the discount_base semantics (strikethrough price must be higher than price; 0 = no discount), and notes the currency quirk ('RUR', not 'RUB'). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, followed by the critical write confirmation requirement. The Args list is efficient. Slight redundancy with the endpoint and the WRITE label, but no wasted sentences.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers all parameters, the required confirm_write flag, the currency quirk, the discount_base constraint, and the success response format. The output schema exists, so return values are already structured. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: business_id (cabinet id), offer_id (seller's SKU), price (new price with example), discount_base (pre-discount price or 0 to clear), currency (RUR default, with the RUR/RUB gotcha), and confirm_write (must be true). This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a precise resource ('base price of ONE offer for all shops of the cabinet'), and the exact API endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ym_get_prices (read) and wb_set_price/ozon_set_price (different marketplaces).

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 clearly indicates this is a write operation requiring confirm_write=true, and the endpoint path makes it clear this is for Yandex Market. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over read tools or other marketplace price setters.

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