wb_advert_deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mutation ('Top up') and source choices, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, authentication needs, or what happens after the deposit. For a fund-moving operation this is a notable gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The source mapping is valuable, and the Russian parenthetical is mildly redundant but not harmful.

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 3-parameter mutation, the description gives enough to understand the operation and interpret the non-obvious 'source' parameter. Still, without annotations or an output schema, it would benefit from noting the expected result or any constraints around available funds.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'source' with the 0/1/3 mapping, and 'campaign budget' implies advert_id identifies the campaign, but amount relies on the schema's 'amount, RUB' and advert_id is left implied.

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 states a specific action ('Top up campaign budget') and a clear resource (campaign budget), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like wb_advert_balance and wb_advert_budget. The inline source mapping adds additional precision about what the tool does.

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 verb 'Top up' implies the tool is for adding funds to a campaign, and the source options give some selection context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as wb_advert_budget or wb_advert_payments.

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