Выдать пользователю доступ

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

Annotations already convey mutating, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns API confirmation plus apiPointBalance, and it cannot create or invite users. It doesn't detail duplicate-access error behavior, but with idempotentHint=true the retry story is already covered.

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?

Three sentences with the action and scope first, followed by a parameter/limitation note, then alternative and return value. The parameter restatement is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful enough to lower further.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with rich schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, limitation, alternative, and return value. It could note error behavior on duplicate access, but idempotentHint already addresses retry safety. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already detailed (userId format, role enum with admin/viewer semantics). The description restates that userId is numeric but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Выдаёт существующему пользователю Авито доступ к рекламному аккаунту с указанной ролью.' It clearly differentiates from sibling set_user_role by saying role changes for existing access go through that tool, and it disclaims invitation/account-creation capabilities.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (user must already exist with Avito userId), names the alternative for existing access (set_user_role), and states what the tool cannot do (invite by email/phone or create an account). This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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