Задать расписание показов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutating and repeat-safe nature is covered. The description nevertheless adds important non-obvious behavior: the schedule is replaced wholesale, and any hour not covered by a supplied rule receives no impressions — a real operational hazard an agent must know before calling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the high-severity replacement warning, with no filler. Slightly terse given the eight-parameter surface, but every sentence earns its place.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the destructive-replacement semantics, and points to list_time_zones for valid time_zone values. It omits anything about the response and does not explicitly tie suspend_on_holidays to holiday_bid_percent, though the schema does that work.

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%, including per-field docs for start/end hour semantics, bid_percent stepping, and holiday interaction, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the field categories and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (Задать) and resource (расписание показов кампании) and enumerates the dimensions it covers: days, hours, hourly coefficients, holidays, time zone. The read counterpart get_time_targeting is implicitly distinguished by the set/get contrast, though it is never named.

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 implied by the verb and the enumeration of what can be configured, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_time_targeting or set_bid_adjustments, nor of prerequisites such as required permissions or the campaign existing.

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