Создать уточнения

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation nature is covered by structured data. Beyond that, the description repeats the 25-char limit already in the schema and says nothing about where extensions are applied, whether the call replaces or appends existing callouts, or permission requirements — a meaningful gap for a write 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is appropriately sized, though the duplicated constraint from the schema means the sentence earns slightly less than it could.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and an ambiguous placement scope (campaign vs ad group level), yet the description does not say where these callouts land or what a successful call returns. The agent is left guessing at required preconditions.

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 100% with a single well-documented parameter (maxLength 25, 1-1000 items), so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the schema's length constraint and adds no new semantics.

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 verb + resource ('Создать уточнения (callouts)') and adds a concrete constraint (each text up to 25 characters). It is distinguishable from list_ad_extensions and delete_ad_extensions by the create verb, but it never explicitly references those siblings or what entity (campaign/ad group) the callouts attach to.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of what must already exist (a campaign or ad group) or how it relates to list_ad_extensions/delete_ad_extensions. The agent must infer the whole invocation context.

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