Изменить группу объявлений

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

Annotations already establish a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds that monetary fields are in account currency and that status is out of scope for this tool. No contradictions with annotations were found. It does not discuss side effects or response behavior, but the annotations lower the burden.

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, each earning its place: the core purpose, the currency clarification, and the status-change alternative. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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 and no output schema, the combination of a focused description and fully documented schema is enough to invoke correctly. It lacks any statement about return/confirmation behavior, and the nested targetings/extra objects are only explained in the schema, but those are minor gaps given the rich schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter meaning; the description only summarizes fields already documented and repeats the account-currency fact. This meets the baseline but adds little semantic detail beyond the 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?

Description starts with a concrete verb ('Меняет') tied to the resource ('группы объявлений') and enumerates the exact mutable attributes: name, budgets, max price, dates, targeting. It also routes status changes to sibling ad_group_action, which prevents confusion with the closest sibling.

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 use case is clear: change attributes of an existing ad group using optional fields. The explicit sentence 'Для смены статуса — ad_group_action' provides a concrete when-not and names the alternative tool, so an agent can decide between update_ad_group and ad_group_action immediately.

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