Создать группу объявлений

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations do not: monetary fields are in the account currency and arbitrary fields are passed through via `extra`. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if a duplicate name exists.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the two highest-risk semantic points (targetings shape and currency), then the catch-all rule for `extra`.

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 12-parameter, nested-object creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two trickiest inputs (targetings and extra) but omits any indication of what is returned (e.g. the created group's id) and does not flag that only adPlanId and name are required. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to discover by trial.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by supplying a concrete targeting example ({"geo":{"regions":[188]},"age":{"age_list":[25,26]}}) for a parameter the schema only calls 'sent as-is'. It also clarifies that all money fields (price, maxPrice, budgetLimit, budgetLimitDay) share the account-currency unit, which ties several parameters together.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource in Russian: 'Создаёт группу объявлений внутри кампании', which is unambiguous. The resource (ad group) is distinct from siblings like create_ad_plan and create_banner, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 sentence 'Остальные поля — через `extra`' gives a usage rule for the catch-all parameter, which is helpful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_ad_group or the ad_group_action sibling, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. the parent campaign must already exist, which adPlanId implies but does not explain).

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