Произвольный запрос к API Аудиторий

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

Although annotations already disclose write, destructive, and open-world behavior, the description adds important context: the Authorization header is automatically injected, paths to foreign hosts are rejected, and query parameters must be embedded in the path. These behaviors are not captured by the annotations and help the agent understand safety and execution constraints.

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 compact (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Escape hatch'). It efficiently uses examples and procedural notes without redundancy, and every sentence contributes meaningful information about usage and constraints.

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 an escape-hatch tool with no output schema and open-world behavior, the description covers the essential request aspects: relative path format, query parameter placement, JSON body handling, and automatic auth. It lacks explicit mention of response format or error handling, but these are inherently raw and unpredictable for such a tool, so the description is sufficiently complete given the context.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (path with example, body as JSON, method default GET) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces this information but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. The additional notes on auth and host restrictions are behavioral, not parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch' for direct calls to any Yandex Audience API endpoint, using the verb 'прямой вызов' (direct call). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for endpoints without a dedicated tool, and provides concrete examples (PUT reprocess, POST undelete) that are not in the sibling list.

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 states when to use this tool: 'для эндпоинтов без выделенного инструмента' (for endpoints without a dedicated tool), which clearly defines the usage context. It implicitly signals that dedicated sibling tools should be preferred when available, and the examples illustrate scenarios not covered by siblings. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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