Изменить стратегию кампании

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is supplied structurally. The description's added facts (prices in rubles, goal via goal_id) largely duplicate what each schema property already states, so it contributes little genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. The trailing clause about rubles and goal_id is compact and lands where it 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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal — it leaves the per-strategy parameter combinations (which of goal_id/average_cpa/conversion_price/weekly_spend_limit apply) entirely to the schema. Adequate because the schema is rich, but not complete on usage context.

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%, and every parameter is documented in the schema itself (units, enum meanings, per-strategy requirements). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema is appropriate.

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+resource ('Изменить стратегию текстово-графической кампании') and enumerates the strategy variants the tool sets. It is clearly the write counterpart to the sibling get_strategy, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumerated strategy names and the passing mention that prices are in rubles and the Metrika goal is goal_id. It never says when to choose this over get_strategy, or what prerequisites (e.g. required goal_id / weekly budget per strategy) must hold before calling it.

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