Изменить объявление (banner)

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

Annotations already carry the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructive hints, so the description's incremental behavioral contribution is limited to stating that structures are sent as-is. This is useful for nested objects but is also already reflected in the schema property descriptions. It does not discuss response format, error behavior, or replacement semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 two short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, the sibling alternative is given immediately, and only one additional behavioral caveat ('Структуры отправляются как есть') is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 solid annotations and a fully described schema, this definition supplies the missing selection context: what can be updated and which sibling handles status changes. No output schema exists, but the update semantics and nested-object behavior are adequately covered by the description plus the parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds a light semantic grouping (name, text blocks, links), but no new details for id, extra, or the raw-pass-through behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Меняет' – changes) and identifies the resource (banner/объявление) plus the affected fields: name, text blocks, and links. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from banner_action, which handles status changes, so an agent can select this tool without opening schemas.

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 clearly states the main use case and explicitly routes status changes to the sibling tool banner_action ('Для смены статуса — banner_action'). This is an explicit when-to-use versus alternative instruction, leaving no ambiguity about which tool handles status updates.

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