Создать группу объявлений

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context: targetings is passed through as-is, monetary fields are in account currency, and extra fields go through `extra`. However, it does not disclose return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond creation.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The example and currency/extra clarifications each earn their place and do not repeat schema descriptions.

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 create tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important operational nuances: how targeting is structured, how currency is interpreted, and how to pass additional fields. It lacks an explicit statement about return values, but the schema and annotations cover parameter requirements and mutation semantics well enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-cutting semantics beyond the schema: a concrete targetings example, the account-currency rule for money fields, and the role of `extra` as a passthrough for unspecified fields. This helps an agent understand how to combine parameters correctly.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Создаёт группу объявлений внутри кампании' (creates an ad group inside a campaign). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ad_plan (creates a campaign) and update_ad_group (updates an existing group). The scope is explicit and immediately understandable.

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 this tool should be used when creating an ad group within a campaign, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as update_ad_group or ad_group_action. Usage context is present but left to inference rather than stated directly.

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