avito_activate_ad

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantial extra context beyond them: the final status is controlled by Avito (async uncertainty), the ad must be re-read after acknowledgement, and automatic retries are forbidden. This directly complements the non-idempotent and destructive hints with operational guidance.

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 short, dense sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and following with the two most important operational caveats. Every sentence carries distinct 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 whose safety profile is already in annotations and with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: uncertain outcome, verification via re-reading, and retry prohibition. Remaining minor gap is the semantics of confirm, but overall it is complete enough to call safely.

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 50%: adId is documented in the schema (distinct from the public listId), while confirm has no schema description. The phrase 'après accord explicite' loosely maps to confirm=true, but the description adds no further parameter syntax or meaning, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Demander l'activation d'une annonce du compte'), and the framing as a request rather than a guaranteed state change is clear. It does not explicitly name its inverse sibling avito_deactivate_ad, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 a clear precondition ('après accord explicite') and an explicit when-not rule ('Ne jamais réessayer automatiquement en cas de résultat incertain'). It does not, however, name the alternative action (e.g. deactivate) or contrast scenarios, leaving that to the agent.

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