Управление объявлениями

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds per-action specificity — that only 'delete' is irreversible while suspend/archive are presumably reversible — which is genuinely useful beyond the blanket destructiveHint, but it says nothing about preconditions, quotas, or partial-failure behavior across multiple ad_ids.

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 terse fragments, action list front-loaded and the irreversible delete warning placed last for emphasis. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too sparse given the destructive, multi-action nature of the 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 destructive multi-action tool with no output schema, the description is minimum viable: it names the actions and the one irreversible case. It omits dry_run's value as a preview mechanism (only in the schema), batch-size limits, and failure semantics, so an agent must lean entirely on structured fields.

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 action enum, ad_ids pattern, and dry_run semantics (including that reads still occur) are all documented in the schema itself. The description merely repeats the action list, adding no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 clear verb+resource ('Действие над объявлениями') and enumerates the six operations, so the agent knows this is a multi-action mutation tool. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'moderate_ads', which overlaps with the 'moderate' action listed here, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives: nothing says when to use manage_ads.moderate versus the standalone moderate_ads tool, and nothing clarifies whether the batch ad_ids should be handled here rather than via list_ads. The irreversibility warning is a caution, not usage guidance.

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