Изменить списки ретаргетинга

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) in an open world, which is a low bar. The description adds the critical non-obvious semantic that supplied rules replace the previous set entirely rather than merging, and warns the agent to read first — genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It omits reversibility, permissions, and partial-failure behavior.

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, zero filler: the first declares what changes, the second front-loads the destructive replacement rule and the prerequisite read. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With a single required array parameter, a rich nested schema, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the mutable fields and the whole-replacement semantics. Only minor gaps remain (error behavior for unknown IDs, permission requirements) for a bulk-mutation tool.

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 the schema already documents every field, including the enum for operator and the day range for membership_life_span. The description mirrors the field list and the replace-semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb (change/update) and resource (retargeting lists/conditions) and enumerates the mutable fields: name, description, and rules. An agent can immediately distinguish it from add_retargeting_list and delete_retargeting_lists 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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite — read the condition first via list_retargeting_lists — which is a concrete workflow instruction naming the sibling to call. It does not, however, spell out when to prefer add/delete siblings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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