Привязать общие минус-фразы

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

Annotations cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: bindings are replaced (not appended), campaign-level bindings cascade to all its ad groups, and an empty set_ids clears them. It also notes that campaign type is read server-side, causing an extra API call — a useful cost hint not present in structured fields. Missing only permission/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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the replacement semantics come first and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact.

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 full annotation coverage, full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description supplies the key destructive/cascade/clearing semantics an agent needs. It stops short of routing guidance against the many sibling negative-keyword tools, which is the one notable gap.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema, including maxItems and the destructive-replacement note. The description only reinforces the empty-set_ids behavior already stated in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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 ('Заменить привязки общих наборов минус-фраз') plus the two target scopes (кампаний и/или групп объявлений). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like set_campaign_negative_keywords and set_ad_group_negative_keywords, which operate on individual keywords rather than shared sets.

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?

Explains the operational semantics (campaign-level binding cascades to all ad groups, empty set_ids clears), which implies usage, but never states when to choose this over manage_negative_keyword_shared_sets or the per-level negative keyword tools. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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