Изменить кампанию (ad_plan)

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

Annotations already provide the key safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a small note that money fields are in account currency and routes status changes away, but it does not describe patch semantics, error behavior, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is only two sentences: the first lists the mutable fields, the second covers currency and points to ad_plan_action for status changes. It is front-loaded, minimal, and contains no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 seven-parameter update tool with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description covers the remaining needed context: the editable scope, currency units, and the sibling for status changes. It does not spell out response or error semantics, but there is no output schema to match and that gap is minor.

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 every parameter already carries a description, type, and constraints such as pattern and exclusiveMinimum. The tool description only groups fields into categories and repeats the currency rule, adding no real parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource and verb ('Меняет у кампании') and enumerates exactly what can be changed: name, budgets, max bid, and dates. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from ad_plan_action by reserving status changes for that sibling. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: 'Для смены статуса — ad_plan_action' tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to use instead. The listed editable fields make it clear when this tool is appropriate. This is direct, actionable usage guidance.

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