Обновить группу

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, open-world mutation, so the description's marginal job is small. It adds two useful behavioral notes: the group is edited in place rather than recreated, and settings it doesn't mention are left alone (they belong to other tools). It says nothing about permissions, side effects on existing ads/moderation, or error behavior when an invalid region combination is sent.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: capability and scope first, the destructive replace semantics second, sibling routing last. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what can be changed, how lists are replaced, and where the excluded settings live. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of the response shape (e.g. whether the updated group is returned) or of permission/validation failure modes.

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 the schema already documents the replace-whole-list semantics for region_ids, the minus-region constraints, the no-leading-? UTM format, and null-clears-tagging. The description only echoes that region_ids is a full replacement list. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Изменить группу объявлений") and immediately scopes it ("без пересоздания") plus enumerates exactly which fields are mutable: name, region_ids, tracking_params. It also names the sibling tools that own the ad-group settings it does NOT change (set_ad_group_negative_keywords, link_negative_keyword_sets, update_keywords), so an agent can distinguish it from neighbors without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes adjacent operations to the correct alternatives — negative phrases, keyword sets, autotargeting — which is real when-to-use-else guidance. The "и/или" phrasing signals partial update (send only what you change). What's missing is the inverse case (when to use create_ad_group or delete_ad_groups instead) and any stated preconditions such as needing an existing ad_group_id.

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