avito_save_ad

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it states that the connected account is required (auth implication) and that the return is Avito's acknowledgement string, plus advising a follow-up favorites check to confirm state. It does not reconcile the counterintuitive destructiveHint=true for a 'save' action, which is the main remaining gap.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence efficiently bundles the return value with the verification advice.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, identifier, authentication context, and the exact nature of the return value, so an agent has most of what it needs. It stops short of covering failure behavior or the meaning of the destructive/idempotent hints flagged by annotations.

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 explains listId thoroughly, including that it is distinct from adId. The description merely repeats 'via son listId' without adding format, source, or example detail, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource – it explicitly adds an ad ('annonce') to the connected account's favorites ('favoris') – and specifies the mechanism (via listId). It is clearly distinguishable in substance from siblings like avito_unsave_ad or avito_list_saved_ads, but it never names or contrasts with any of them, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. The only guidance is procedural ('consulter les favoris pour vérifier leur état'), which implies a verification workflow but says nothing about when this tool is the right choice versus unsave or list operations. Usage is therefore only implied.

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