Действие с объявлениями

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the action names—no mention of irreversibility, error conditions, or permissions. With annotations covering the basic profile, the description provides minimal extra transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource and action list. It avoids fluff and efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting action semantics, which is a minor structural flaw.

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 destructive tool (as indicated by annotations), the description lacks critical context: what happens after a delete or moderate, any side effects, or error behaviors. While the schema documents parameter types, the action semantics are unexplained. Given the destructive nature and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent that needs to reason about consequences.

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 coverage is 50% (ids has a description, action does not). The description lists the action enum values but merely repeats them without explaining what each action does (e.g., what 'moderate' or 'suspend' entails). The ids parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds little semantic value 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 clearly states the tool performs an action on ads (объявления) by id, listing the specific actions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like campaign_action and keyword_action which target campaigns and keywords respectively, giving the agent unambiguous resource identification.

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 implies usage for ads due to the explicit mention of 'объявления', but it does not provide any when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g., contrasting with campaign_action or keyword_action. No exclusions or conditions are stated, so the agent must infer from the resource name alone.

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