ozon_ad_campaign_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add meaningful constraint context: allowed placement/strategy enum values, a 2000₽ per-SKU minimum budget, and the fact that goods must be attached separately via ozon_ad_products_add. However, it never states what a successful creation returns (critical given no output schema), whether the campaign starts active or paused, or any side effects beyond the verb 'create'. The trailing '(создать кампанию)' fragment adds noise, not behavioral information.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the constraints are packed into a single dense sentence with little wasted space. But the dangling Russian fragment '(создать кампанию)' merely repeats the opening intent in another language, earns no place, and should be deleted; the long inline enum lists also make the clause harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.

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?

This is a mutating, two-step workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description alone must cover the call contract — and it omits the most consequential parts: what the response contains (e.g., a campaign ID needed to chain ozon_ad_products_add or ozon_ad_campaign_activate), and how the two optional budget parameters satisfy the stated 2000₽ minimum. An agent can invoke it on blind faith but cannot verify the outcome or safely chain the next call.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates by enumerating the valid values for strategy and placement — two parameters the schema leaves entirely undescribed — and by adding a budget floor ('Min budget 2000₽ per SKU'). It does not clarify whether daily_budget_rub and weekly_budget_rub are alternatives or how the per-SKU minimum maps to them, and the required title parameter receives no naming guidance. Still, the added enum and budget semantics go well beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource statement — 'Create a CPC Trafarety campaign' — and sharpens scope with 'the only type creatable via API,' which distinguishes it from the dozens of other ad-campaign lifecycle tools in the sibling list (list, stop, activate, budget_update). The intent is unambiguous even without the tool name.

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 explicitly routes the follow-up step: 'add goods via ozon_ad_products_add,' so an agent learns that creating a campaign alone does not complete the ad setup workflow. The 'only type creatable via API' clause sets a when-not boundary against other campaign types. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with campaign lifecycle siblings like ozon_ad_campaign_activate or ozon_ad_campaign_stop, which remain implicit from context.

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