Действие над группой объявлений

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

Annotations already signal mutating and destructive behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds specific behavioral detail beyond those flags by mapping each action value to the resulting status: activate=active, stop=blocked, delete=deleted. This clarifies what the operation actually does to the resource.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('changes status of ad groups by id') and then lists the action-to-status mappings. Every piece of information is useful, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 two-parameter tool with an enum and no output schema, the description plus schema provide enough information to select and invoke it correctly. It omits details about response values or error behavior, but these are not essential for a straightforward status-change action.

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 50%: 'ids' has a description but 'action' does not. The description compensates by explaining the three action enum values and their status mappings. This adds real meaning beyond the raw enum list, though it adds little about 'ids' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Меняет статус'), a specific resource ('групп объявлений'), and the exact domain of operations (activate/stop/delete with resulting statuses). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ad_plan_action or banner_action by naming ad groups and the status-change semantics.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the caller needs to change the status of ad groups by id, with the exact allowed actions enumerated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases, so it misses the top tier, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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