Создать объявление

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, signaling a write to an external system. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema's character limits — nothing about permissions, side effects, or what the call returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated field list — no wasted words. Efficient, though 'ссылка' omits the constraint the schema carries for href.

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, the definition should say more — e.g., that the ad group must exist or what a successful create returns. The schema fully covers the inputs, but the description leaves the agent without return or prerequisite context.

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 all five parameters are already documented with names and length limits. The description's field list and limits only restate what the schema provides, adding no new syntax or meaning. 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 ('Создать') and resource ('текстовое объявление') and enumerates the content fields, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. The create-vs-update distinction against update_text_ad follows from the verb, but the description never names the sibling or otherwise differentiates explicitly.

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 when/when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative update_text_ad for edits, and no prerequisites such as the target ad group having to exist. The agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name.

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