Удалить корректировки ставок

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: the bid is reset to base and deletion is irreversible. This exceeds what the annotations alone convey, though it doesn't mention auth or rate limits.

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: the action first, then the consequence/irreversibility. No filler, well front-loaded.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral facts (bid reset, no undo). It could mention the maxItems limit or batch nature, but annotations and schema carry most of the remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents adjustment_ids including pattern, bounds, and the hint to source IDs from get_bid_adjustments. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (delete bid adjustments by ID) and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings get_bid_adjustments, add_bid_adjustments, and set_bid_adjustments. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the delete semantics are 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?

The description implies usage (delete by ID, references get_bid_adjustments in the schema) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus set_bid_adjustments or when not to. Usage is inferable from the verb but not spelled out.

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