Изменить корректировки ставок

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the nuance that this changes coefficients of existing entries (a partial-update semantic rather than a full overwrite), and says nothing about scope limits, permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded; nothing is padded or redundant. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting useful context rather than from tight editing.

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?

The schema fully documents the single nested-array parameter and the annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile, so an agent has enough to call this correctly. Only a note about batch size (max 1000) or prerequisites would be needed for a 5, but those are already in the schema bounds.

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 nested bid_modifier (0–1300, 100 = unchanged) and adjustment_id pattern are fully documented in the schema. The description echoes this with 'коэффициенты' and 'по их ID' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (Изменить) and resource (коэффициенты существующих корректировок), and 'существующих' hints it operates on already-created items rather than adding new ones. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with add_bid_adjustments or delete_bid_adjustments, leaving sibling differentiation to the reader.

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?

The word 'существующих' and 'по их ID' imply this is for updating already-existing adjustments, which weakly implies add_bid_adjustments is the tool for new ones. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. that IDs must be fetched via get_bid_adjustments) is given.

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