Действие над объявлением

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation that can be destructive. The description adds specific behavioral context by mapping each action to a resulting status (activate→active, stop→blocked, delete→deleted), clarifying that 'delete' is a status transition rather than a physical deletion. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful detail about the side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first ('Меняет статус объявлений по id') and then lists the actions with their effects. No wasted words; it is compact and immediately understandable.

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?

The tool is a simple mutation with two parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the response looks like, or any limitations (e.g., maximum number of ids, reversibility of delete). While the core behavior is clear, an agent might need to know the return format or potential errors. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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' has a description. The description compensates for the undocumented 'action' parameter by explaining what each enum value does (status mapping). It also clarifies that the operation is performed on multiple ids (array). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Меняет статус' – changes status), a resource (объявлений – ads/banners), and distinguishes three actions with explicit target statuses (activate→active, stop→blocked, delete→deleted). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_banner (which would handle field edits) and ad_plan_action/ad_group_action (different resources).

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 implies usage by defining the tool as a status-change operation, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_banner (which might also allow status changes) or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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