Создать группу

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write against external state. The description adds the region-targeting nature of the created entity, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the parent campaign must pre-exist, or failure modes.

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally improved by making the get_regions cross-reference more actionable, but there is no waste.

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?

With full schema coverage, annotations covering the write/safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. It still omits prerequisites (existing campaign) and confirmation/return behavior, leaving a modest gap for a mutating tool.

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% and the schema itself is unusually rich (region_ids documents the get_regions format, negative-region rules, and the '0' special case). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (ad group) plus its embedding context (inside a campaign) and the region-targeting angle, which distinguishes it from the generic campaign/keyword siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_campaign or create_text_ad, but the scope 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?

It points the agent to get_regions as the source for region codes, which is genuinely useful for populating region_ids. Beyond that, there is no statement of when to use this versus create_campaign or other creation tools, and no listed prerequisites or exclusions.

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