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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It discloses only the batch-size limit (already encoded as maxItems: 500 in the schema) and says nothing about permissions, whether the change is reversible, idempotency, or what happens on invalid IDs.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and its hard limit front-loaded; nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully described in the schema. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool the description should say more about scope (which project/account the keyword IDs belong to) and failure behavior.

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 100%: both keyword_ids and the status enum are documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates the hold/active values, adding no format, ordering, or partial-failure semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Изменить статус') and resource ('ключевых слов') plus the exact target values (hold/active), so the agent knows precisely what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings like update_group_keywords or delete_keywords.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how this differs from update_group_keywords or create_keywords. The 'max 500 per request' line is a constraint, not usage routing.

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