wb_advert_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Rename', implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, validation rules, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler or irrelevant detail. The Russian translation is redundant but not harmful. It is concise without sacrificing the core message.

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 two-parameter rename operation, the description provides a minimal viable understanding. However, there is no annotation coverage and no information about expected outcomes, error scenarios, or validation rules, so the contextual picture is incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke it reliably.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It partially does: the description implies that 'advert_id' identifies the campaign and 'name' is the new name. However, it does not explicitly clarify which parameter is the target ID and which is the new value, or describe any name 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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and a specific resource ('an ad campaign'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from the many sibling wb_advert_* tools by naming the exact operation being performed.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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