wb_advert_pause

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only labels the action as an emergency pause and gives an example; it does not state whether the action is reversible, idempotent, what state change occurs, or any side effects.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with an urgency indicator [P0] and an illustrative case. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out expected behavior and how it differs from sibling wb_advert_stop and wb_advert_start. It is enough to understand the intent, but not enough to fully specify correct invocation and consequences.

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 description never mentions advert_id or explains how it maps to a campaign. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not; the parameter name is self-explanatory, but that is not tool-description value.

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?

States a specific action ('Emergency pause') and a concrete resource ('ad campaign'), with a realistic trigger scenario. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wb_advert_stop, and the parenthetical Russian phrase 'остановить рекламу' uses 'stop' language that could blur the boundary.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: P0/emergency, with an explicit example threshold ('ДРР over 20%'). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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