direct.create_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the implied mutation. It does not say what happens on duplicate keywords, whether this needs Client-Login/account scoping, what errors or partial failures look like, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a mutation tool with a nested object parameter.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'items' array whose inner object shape is left entirely open, the description is far too thin. It leaves insertion context, required parent entities, and success/failure behavior unexplained.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (items, params override, account_id, direct_client_login). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Create keywords') scoped to Yandex Direct, so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as direct.update_keywords, direct.list_keywords, or direct.hf.find_keywords, so an agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. an existing ad group or campaign must exist first), and no mention of alternative keywords like update_keywords or the bulk/hf equivalents. The agent is left to guess the correct entry point.

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