Создать сегмент на основе пикселя

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

The description goes significantly beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) by disclosing rate limits ('Квота: 10/мин, 100/час, 500/сутки'), the response format ('{"segment": {...}}'), and the experimental nature of device_matching_type. These behavioral traits are not covered by the annotations, making the description highly transparent.

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 concise and information-dense, covering purpose, parameter logic, experimental warnings, response format, and rate limits in a few sentences. Every clause provides useful guidance without fluff or redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the core logic, experimental parameter, response shape, and quotas. It does not mention potential follow-up steps like confirmation (the sibling confirm_segment exists), which could be relevant context, but given that the schema fully covers parameter semantics, the overall picture is strong.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by stating that conditions combine via logical AND ('Дополнительные условия объединяются по «И»'), which is not in the schema. It also reinforces the pairing of times_quantity and times_quantity_operation, adding value beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Создаёт сегмент типа pixel' (creates a pixel-type segment), identifying the resource (segment) and the specific base (pixel_id from list_pixels). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lookalike_segment, which create different segment types.

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 clear usage context by explaining how to construct the segment: 'пользователи, которых пиксель видел за последние period_length дней' and that additional conditions combine by 'AND'. It even flags device_matching_type as experimental, advising caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., using lookalike segments instead), missing the top criterion for a 5.

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