Создать кампанию

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

Annotations mark it as a non-read-only, open-world mutation but say nothing about risk. The description adds critical context beyond annotations: no test environment exists, the campaign lands in a production account, and it starts spending real money only after moderation and enabling – plus the draft mitigation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose first and the risk warning given prominence via the ⚠️ marker. Every sentence carries weight; only the 'budget in rubles' line is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the biggest missing piece: the production/no-sandbox risk and the draft workaround. It does not mention what the call returns (e.g., the new campaign ID), which matters for chaining, but the schema otherwise carries the parameter burden.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters in detail, including enums and defaults. The description only adds 'budget in rubles', which the schema also states for daily_budget, so it adds essentially nothing beyond structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 новую рекламную кампанию' clearly distinguishes it from update_campaign and get_campaign. However, it offers no explicit sibling differentiation or scope details, so it is clear but not exceptional.

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?

The description implies when to use it (creating a campaign to test should be left as a draft) and gives one precautionary usage note. But it never names alternatives or states when-not to use it (e.g., duplicate name handling, prerequisites). Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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