Изменить кампанию (ad_plan)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that monetary fields use account currency, which is genuinely useful for correct invocation. It does not disclose the partial-update behavior (are omitted fields left untouched?) or failure modes, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope and immediately followed by the sibling routing rule. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the description covers field scope, units and the key sibling alternative. The one substantive omission is whether the operation is a partial patch (only provided fields change), which an agent needs to avoid unintended overwrites.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including id, extra, dateEnd format and currency. The description's currency note largely restates the schema's own wording and adds nothing about the 'extra' passthrough object or partial-update semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the detail.

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) and resource (кампания), then enumerates the exact mutable fields: name, budgets, max bid, dates. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from ad_plan_action, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 one explicit routing rule — use ad_plan_action for status changes — which is the most likely confusion with this tool. It does not spell out other conditions (e.g. that only supplied fields are modified, or when to prefer create_ad_plan vs this tool), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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