Обновить кампанию

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description's note that tracking markup applies to all ads in the campaign is a genuine side-effect disclosure, though it largely duplicates the schema's own tracking_params documentation. Nothing is said about permissions, reversibility of ARCHIVE, or budget-change effects.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, with the affected fields front-loaded before the cross-ad side effect. Every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the operation surface and the one non-obvious ripple effect (link rewriting across ads). It omits only secondary details such as error/permission behavior, which is a minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema with formats and valid values. The description only restates the field list and adds the currency unit (руб), which the schema also states — baseline 3 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 (обновить) plus resource (кампанию) and enumerates exactly which fields can be updated: название, бюджет, UTM-разметку, статус. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like manage_campaigns or update_text_ad, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 'и/или' phrasing implies this is a partial-update tool and that at least one optional field should be supplied, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the adjacent manage_campaigns sibling.

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