Добавить ключевые слова

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write and external-system traits are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of auth requirements, whether phrases are appended vs replacing, duplicate handling, limits on count, or that new phrases start in a pending moderation state.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 many keyword siblings, the description omits prerequisites, append semantics, duplicate behavior, and moderation state. The structured fields cover safety and params, but the behavioral context an agent needs to call this correctly versus update_keywords is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the hyphen-minus-word convention in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (добавить) and resource (ключевые фразы в группу объявлений), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like update_keywords, manage_keywords, or set_keyword_bids, so the agent can't tell when this specific add-path applies versus those.

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 context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_keywords for existing phrases. The agent gets an implied action but no routing guidance among the many keyword siblings.

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