delete_ad_groupsPermanently removes Yandex.Direct ad groups by their IDs. Use when you need to delete specific groups from a campaign; this action cannot be undone.
Удалить группы объявлений по их ID. ⚠️ Необратимо.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_group_ids | Yes | Группы, которые будут удалены безвозвратно |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversibility warning largely repeats structured data. Still, the explicit ⚠️ Необратимо makes the consequence impossible to miss, which is useful for a destructive tool, though it adds nothing about auth, batch limits, or partial-failure 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?
Two short sentences front-loading the action and resource, with the risk warning immediately after. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 1-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the irreversibility well, but says nothing about what happens on nonexistent IDs, whether deletion is partial or atomic, or what the agent should verify before calling. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.
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%: the ad_group_ids parameter and its items are already documented with pattern and minItems constraints, and the schema even repeats the irreversible wording. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?
States a specific verb (Удалить) and resource (группы объявлений), scoped by ID. The sibling set contains list_ad_groups, create_ad_group and update_text_ad-style group tools, so naming the deletion action and its keying by ID clearly separates it from sibling operations.
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 says deletion is by ID, implying the tool is for removing already-known ad groups, but it never states when to choose it over list_ad_groups or other ad-group tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied through the resource and ID scoping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.