Создать корректировки ставок

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and open-world nature is covered. The description adds real value by explaining that 100 leaves the bid unchanged and 0 disables impressions for that slice, but it says nothing about permissions or whether adding an adjustment merges with or replaces existing ones — critical given a set_bid_adjustments sibling exists.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the operation and its scope front-loaded before the coefficient semantics. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema is fully documented, the description is nearly sufficient. The notable gap is that it does not resolve add-versus-set semantics against a very similar sibling, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved here.

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%, including the same '100 — ставка без изменений' note for bid_modifier, so the description's coefficient explanation is largely redundant with structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents all parameters.

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 and resource ('Создать корректировки ставок') and names the two scopes it applies to (кампании или группы). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling set_bid_adjustments, which is the most likely confusion for an agent choosing between them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives. With get_bid_adjustments, set_bid_adjustments and delete_bid_adjustments all present as siblings, the agent gets no hint about when to add versus when to set or overwrite existing adjustments.

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