Изменить группу объявлений

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's remaining job is narrower. It adds that monetary values use account currency, but omits the key behavioral question for an update tool: whether omitted fields are left untouched, and whether replacing targetings discards the previous structure (that detail lives only in the schema).

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, front-loaded with the scope, then the currency constraint, then the sibling redirect. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, a nested object, no output schema and full schema coverage plus annotations, the description covers most of what an agent needs. The gap is partial-update semantics and the `extra` escape hatch, which an agent could misuse without further explanation.

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 each of the 8 parameters is already documented, including currency and the YYYY-MM-DD pattern; baseline is therefore 3. The description only restates the field groups and repeats the account-currency rule, without explaining the `extra` passthrough or partial-update semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb (Меняет) plus the exact resource and enumerates the mutable field groups (название, бюджеты, предельную ставку, даты, таргетинг), so an agent knows precisely what this tool writes. It also disambiguates from the closest sibling by routing status changes to ad_group_action.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative ('Для смены статуса — ad_group_action'), which is the most likely confusion given that sibling exists. It lacks any positive when-to-use context or prerequisites (e.g. that the ad group must exist / be editable), so it falls short of a full 5.

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