Действие над кампанией

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the key non-obvious behavior: delete is non-cascading and leaves groups/ads in their prior status. The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the remaining gap is minor — no mention of whether deletion is reversible or what permissions are needed.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the operations and their state mappings come first, then the important caveat about delete scope. Nothing is left dangling or repeated.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and destructive annotations already present, the description covers operations, state results, and cascade behavior. It could still say whether errors on one id abort the whole batch, but that is a small residual gap.

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% — only `ids` is documented in the schema, while the `action` enum has no description. The description compensates by defining every enum value's meaning and side effect, though it does not clarify whether `ids` accepts mixed campaigns or what happens on partial failure.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (меняет статус кампаний по id) and enumerates the three concrete operations with their resulting states. It also names ad_group_action and banner_action, making the boundary with siblings explicit.

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?

Each action is spelled out with its effect (activate→active, stop→blocked, delete→deleted), which is effectively the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It further clarifies that deleting child objects is a separate task routed to ad_group_action and banner_action.

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