keyso_post_tools_extended_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says that a task is created. It does not disclose whether the creation is asynchronous, what side effects occur, what auth is needed, or that result polling is done via keyso_get_tools_extended_keywords_state_uid. The task-creation behavior is stated but major operational traits are absent.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first phrase and the method/path following immediately. There is no filler or repetition, making it very easy to scan.

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 task-creation endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits how to form the body, what response to expect, and how to poll for completion using the state/uid siblings, so an agent cannot reliably complete the workflow from this definition alone.

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 baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter details. The body parameter is documented only as 'JSON body' with an empty properties object, so an agent still cannot determine the required payload structure; however, this is a schema limitation rather than a description omission.

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 clear action—'создание задания' (creating a task) for 'Расширение ключевых фраз' (extended keyword phrases)—and gives the HTTP method and path. This distinguishes it from the corresponding GET endpoints (keyso_get_tools_extended_keywords_uid/state_uid), but it does not differentiate it from other POST task-creation tools such as keyso_post_tools_keywords_by_list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to sibling tools like keyso_post_tools_keywords_by_list or the state/uid GET endpoints. The only usage signal is the action phrase 'создание задания', which does not provide context or exclusions.

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