direct.update_adgroups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the update is partial or full-replace, what happens to unspecified fields, whether it is destructive, what batch limits apply, or what auth/account context is needed. Only the word 'Update' signals a mutation at all.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but at this level it reads as under-specification rather than conciseness given a 4-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no annotations. It is terse but not informative.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested object parameters, the description is insufficient: it omits update semantics, required fields beyond Id, account/agency scoping behavior, and any failure or partial-success behavior. The gaps are structural, not cosmetic.

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% (each of the 4 parameters has its own description, including the nested 'items' array requiring Id and the account_id/direct_client_login fields), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 verb (Update) and resource (ad groups) plus the platform (Yandex Direct), but that content is almost entirely a restatement of the tool name 'direct.update_adgroups'. It gives no indication of what fields can be updated or how it differs from siblings such as direct.hf.update_adgroup_geo, direct.hf.set_adgroup_negative_keywords, or direct.create_adgroups.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set that includes granular ad-group mutation tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the generic bulk-update path versus the specialized hf.* variants.

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