wb_advert_stop

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'For good' communicates that this is a terminal, non-pause action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, state requirements, or return behavior, so it only reaches a minimum viable level.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It includes the key behavioral contrast ('unlike pause') and a helpful Russian gloss, making every part earn its place.

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 one-parameter action with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the core semantics of a permanent stop. It omits clarification versus wb_advert_delete and any state/undo details, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, and the description never mentions advert_id or explains how to identify the campaign. The parameter is self-explanatory by name and type, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 — 'Finish an ad campaign for good' — and explicitly contrasts it with pause, which helps distinguish it from wb_advert_pause. However, 'for good' leaves some ambiguity against wb_advert_delete, since an agent could interpret permanent finishing as deletion.

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 phrase 'unlike pause' gives clear contextual guidance: use this tool when the goal is to end a campaign permanently instead of temporarily pausing it. It does not fully spell out when-not conditions or contrast with other lifecycle tools like delete.

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