Создать объявление (banner)

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

Annotations already declare the write/one-shot/open-world profile, so the bar is lower and the description earns credit for adding real context: the structures are passed through as-is with no server-side reshaping, and the format-specific shape is delegated to VK Ads documentation. It stops short of saying what is returned (banner id) or whether validation errors are surfaced per field.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the payload semantics, then the documentation pointer — a logical order with no filler. The parenthetical endpoint note costs some density but pays for itself by preventing a wrong-endpoint call.

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 6-parameter tool with nested free-form objects and no output schema, the description covers the destination, the meaning of each payload shape, and where to find the per-format contract. The remaining gap is the response shape and the upload_image dependency, which are only implied.

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 3 is the baseline; the description earns a bump by explaining the relationship between the three passthrough objects (content → uploaded media, textblocks → ad copy, urls → links) and by flagging that the exact shape varies per banner format and lives in external docs — something the schema explicitly cannot express.

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 and resource ('Создаёт объявление') and pins down the exact endpoint (POST v2/ad_groups/{adGroupId}/banners.json), which immediately distinguishes it from list_banners and the other create_* siblings. It also pre-empts a likely confusion by noting that the top-level v2/banners.json is list-only.

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?

Clearly establishes the required context — a banner can only be created inside an existing ad group — and rules out the top-level path. It implies the upload_image prerequisite by saying the creative references already-uploaded media, but does not state prerequisites or failure modes explicitly (e.g. what happens with a wrong adGroupId or a slot-mismatched image).

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