Запрещённые IP кампании

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description states exactly what is destroyed under replace (prior addresses are lost), that an empty array clears the list, and that add/remove incur an extra API read of the current list. The 25-address cap and the rejection of private subnets, masks, and IPv6 are also surfaced, which the annotations alone would not convey.

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?

The definition leads with what the resource is, then lays out mode semantics in one dense but readable sentence. Every clause carries information; there is no filler, though the parenthetical stacking makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers destruction semantics, side effects, input constraints, and where to read current state. It stops short of describing the response or failure behavior for rejected addresses, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the 25-address limit that appears nowhere in the schema and links the mode enum to concrete list outcomes. It mostly complements rather than duplicates the parameter documentation.

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 first sentence defines the resource precisely: IP addresses the campaign is not shown to, capped at 25 single public IPv4s. That is enough to separate it from siblings like set_campaign_excluded_sites or set_campaign_negative_keywords, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 three modes are spelled out with selection logic: replace for a full swap, add for appending, remove for deletion, plus a pointer to get_campaign for inspecting the current list first. What is missing is any explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative tool for related targeting tasks.

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