Изменить ключевые слова

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only open-world operation. The description adds high-value behavioral disclosure: editing text may produce a phrase with a NEW ID or delete it as a duplicate, and auto-targeting text is never changed. These are non-obvious side effects 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 action and immediately followed by side effects and sibling routing. Dense and efficient, though the side-effect sentence is long.

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?

Covers the action, the key side effect, verification step, and delimitation from siblings. No output schema exists, but for a mutation with ID-changing side effects, a brief note on the response shape or partial-failure handling would make it fully complete.

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% and the nested items already document keyword constraints, keyword_id pattern, and param1/param2 null-clearing. The description only restates that it edits phrase text and substitution variables, adding no meaning beyond the schema. 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+resource ('Изменить текст ключевых фраз') and explicitly delimits scope: bids and status are handled by other tools. An agent can immediately distinguish this from set_keyword_bids and manage_keywords.

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 the caller: 'Ставки меняет set_keyword_bids, статус — manage_keywords', and tells the caller to verify results with list_keywords. This is textbook when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance naming the alternatives.

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