Прямой вызов API Авито Рекламы

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It explains that this tool bypasses client-side validation, that write operations are irreversible, that path binding to account is enforced, and that GET is unrestricted. It also details confirmWrite semantics for POST/DELETE. No contradictions with annotations; it adds critical safety context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 a long, dense paragraph with many clauses, making it verbose and somewhat difficult to parse. It front-loads the purpose but then packs multiple safety caveats and examples into one block. While every sentence has content, the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points or separate sections) hurts readability. It's adequate but not concise.

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 such a powerful and dangerous raw-access tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, safety (irreversibility and confirmWrite), path constraints, and return value (raw response plus apiPointBalance). It could mention error handling or rate limits, but given the breadth already covered, it's quite complete. A 4 is fair since some edge-case behaviors are left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the parameters substantially: it explains the {accountID} substitution in path, the meaning and requirement of confirmWrite, and that body is sent as JSON. This adds value beyond the schema's terse descriptions, earning above 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 specific purpose: a universal raw HTTP requester for any Avito Ads API path, and explicitly distinguishes it from specialized tools by saying 'for endpoints that don't have a separate tool' and naming alternatives like transfer_funds, delete_user, and create_*. This makes its role unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: use this when no dedicated tool exists, and prefer the dedicated tools when they are available ('better to take it: transfer_funds / delete_user / create_*'). It also advises caution with confirmWrite because POST can be used for harmless reads, giving concrete decision rules. This is explicit and unambiguous.

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