Управление динамическими целями

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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that and the action enum: it omits the irreversibility of delete (only stated in the schema), the dry_run preview behavior, and any permission or rate-limit context.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler, and the operation list is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extremely terse packaging leaves little for the agent to anchor on beyond the verb list.

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 five parameters and action-conditional inputs, the description does not explain which parameters pair with which action, though the schema and annotations largely fill that gap and there is no output schema to worry about. Adequate but with a clear gap around action-to-parameter coupling.

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%, with every parameter, enum and constraint documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional meaning about how bids, targets or dynamic_target_ids are conditioned on the chosen action.

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 clear resource (динамические цели) and enumerates the concrete verbs (create, bid-change, stop, resume, delete) it supports, so an agent immediately knows this is the mutating counterpart to list_dynamic_targets. It is essentially the natural-language form of the action enum, so it does not distinguish itself from siblings beyond that, but the purpose is 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: there is no mention of picking this over manage_campaigns, nor of the fact that action-specific arguments (bids for set_bids, targets for add, dynamic_target_ids for suspend/resume/delete) must be supplied. The description offers no context or prerequisites for correct invocation.

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