Управление изображениями

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description's only added behavioral detail is the base64 encoding requirement for add, which largely duplicates the schema's 'image_data' description; it does not say which action is irreversible or what constraints apply.

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 naming the three actions, followed by one short conditional clause. Both clauses earn their place and there is no filler, though the whole definition is thin for a six-parameter destructive tool.

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 multi-action tool with a destructive delete branch, the description covers only the add path and omits any framing of the read/filter or delete flows. With no output schema this is acceptable on return values, but the description does not help an agent understand which parameters matter for which action beyond what the schema already spells out.

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 six parameters (action, images, limit, offset, associated, ad_image_hashes) are documented in the schema itself, including per-action applicability and the irreversibility of delete. The description's base64 note adds nothing beyond what 'image_data' already states, 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?

The description names a specific resource (AdImages / объявления изображения) and enumerates the three operations (upload, get, delete), so an agent immediately knows this is a multi-action image CRUD tool. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since no other tool in the list touches ad images, but it also makes no explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied through the action list and the one conditional hint ('Для add данные передаются в base64'). There is no guidance on when to choose get vs delete, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to any sibling tool.

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