Создать комбинаторное объявление

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

With annotations declaring a write operation and open-world behavior, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the ad variants are assembled by Direct from the supplied assets, text ads are no longer created via API, and each group has a cap of 3 non-archived responsive ads. It stops short of covering moderation, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the create action and asset limits, then adds the legacy text-ad note and group cap without padding. It is dense but every sentence carries relevant operational 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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core creation rules and the relevant group-level constraint. It could say more about post-creation moderation or return values, but nothing essential to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 required parameters and their limits are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the title and text count/length constraints and confirms the required link, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Создать комбинаторное объявление'), defines the asset composition (1–7 titles, 1–3 texts, link), and explicitly distinguishes it from legacy text ads, which it says are no longer created through the API. This lets an agent identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 makes clear that this is the API path for creating ads now that text ads are no longer created directly, and it gives the group-level constraint of no more than 3 non-archived responsive ads. It does not explicitly route the agent to update_responsive_ad or manage_ads, but the creation context is clear.

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