Добавить уточнения

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: callouts are immutable and must be deleted/recreated, and binding to ads happens through the Ads service. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 carry the essential information with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed by the immutable-recreation constraint and the external binding note. 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 single-parameter tool, the description covers creation, length limits, immutability, and the Ads-service dependency. It would benefit from stating what the tool returns (notably whether created callout IDs are returned), but this is a minor gap for invocation purposes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 25-character limit already present in the schema but adds no new semantic meaning for the 'texts' parameter. It neither compensates for gaps nor introduces confusion.

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 opens with 'Создаёт уточнения' (creates callouts), naming both the action and the resource. It also adds distinguishing constraints: up to 25 characters and immutability. This clearly separates it from siblings like delete_callouts and get_callouts.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to create new callouts. It also explains the workflow for changes ('нужно удалить и создать заново'), implying that modifications require delete-then-create. It does not explicitly name the sibling delete_callouts, but the guidance is still actionable.

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