add_ad_extensionsAdd callouts to Yandex.Direct ads, each up to 25 characters, to provide extra information and increase engagement.
Создать уточнения (callouts), каждый текст до 25 символов.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | true — ничего не менять: проверить параметры и вернуть тела запросов, которые ушли бы в Директ. Чтение при этом выполняется. | |
| callouts | Yes | Тексты уточнений, каждый до 25 символов |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / dry_runAdded value: +{
+ "description": "true — ничего не менять: проверить параметры и вернуть тела запросов, которые ушли бы в Директ. Чтение при этом выполняется.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates remote state, but the description adds nothing behavioral. It does not say whether existing callouts are replaced or appended, whether the extension applies account-wide or to specific ads, or what happens on partial failure — important 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined brevity, which keeps it out of the top band.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description leaves critical context missing: the required callouts array is the only argument, yet nothing explains what entity the extensions attach to or whether the call is additive or replacing. The dry_run capability is only discoverable from the schema, not the description.
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%: both the callouts array (1–25 chars) and the dry_run flag are fully documented in the schema, including the dry-run read behavior. The description only restates the 25-character limit already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Создать уточнения (callouts)") and narrows the ambiguous tool name 'ad_extensions' down to callouts specifically. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling pair list_ad_extensions / delete_ad_extensions, but the scope of what is created is unambiguous.
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 on when to create callouts versus other extension types (sitelinks, vcards) represented by sibling tools, nor any preconditions such as campaign/ad scope. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.