Создать пиксель

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

Given annotations already flag readOnly=false and destructive=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing the response structure (pixel object with url field) and the required next step (inserting code into ads). It does not contradict annotations and provides more detail than the bare schema, though it does not elaborate on side effects beyond creation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value—first stating the creation function, second explaining the response and subsequent usage. No redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter create tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: creation, response shape, and downstream usage. It even explains the purpose of the returned field, making it self-contained for 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?

The schema covers the single 'name' parameter with a description, so the baseline is 3. The description merely references 'the specified name' without adding format, constraints, or additional meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter insight is provided.

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 clearly states the tool creates a Yandex Audiences pixel with a given name, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the response and the follow-up tool create_pixel_segment, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (initial pixel creation) and explains the workflow of inserting the pixel code into banners and then using create_pixel_segment. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_pixel or delete_pixel, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the context is clear.

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