Управление ключевыми словами

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful nuance that delete is irreversible, but it says nothing about auth requirements, whether suspend/resume can be undone, or side effects on bids or statistics.

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 that leads with the resource and the allowed actions, then flags the destructive one. No filler, no repetition beyond what is needed.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition is minimally adequate: safety is partly carried by annotations and the delete warning, but scope (per-keyword vs bulk behavior), reversibility of suspend/resume, and any limits on keyword_ids are unaddressed.

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 the action enum and irreversibility already documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates the same action set and the 'необратимо' note, adding no format, ordering, or batching semantics for keyword_ids.

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 the resource (keywords/фразы) and enumerates the three concrete operations (suspend/resume/delete), so an agent knows it mutates existing keywords rather than adding or bidding on them. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like update_keywords, add_keywords, or set_keyword_bids, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

It lists what the tool can do but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives such as update_keywords or delete_ad_groups. The agent must infer from the action enum alone which sibling to pick for a given intent.

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