Возобновить показ предложений

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: the exact API response format ({ status: "OK" } or error codes), possible error codes (DUPLICATE_OFFER, INVALID_FEED_ID, etc.), and a rate limit shared with hide_offers. These are valuable operational details not present in the annotations alone.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then request method and response format, followed by error codes and rate limit. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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?

With a single parameter fully documented by the schema and annotations providing safety hints, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how the API behaves, error handling, and limits. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage, thoroughly describing the 'offers' parameter and its nested fields (feed_id, offer_id). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the 1-500 per request limit, which is already present in schema constraints.

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's purpose: 'Возобновляет показ ранее скрытых предложений' (resumes showing previously hidden offers), with a specific verb and resource. It also references the underlying HTTP endpoint (DELETE /hidden-offers), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hide_offers.

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 implies when to use the tool (for previously hidden offers) and mentions a shared rate limit with hide_offers, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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